PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Scientific Challenge For Evolutionists



Pages : [1] 2

Starman
03-25-2017, 07:48 PM
SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 528 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.
So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 528th power or 10 to the 686th power.


Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^686 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.


Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 600 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.


It's abundantly obvious you cannot ever begin to take the first step in demonstrating YOUR pretense of "understanding abiogenesis."
But try anyway.

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)

Chris
03-25-2017, 07:51 PM
Assume you can't explain it. Assume, too, not being able to explain it mean it didn't happen. OK.

Explain intelligent design.

decedent
03-25-2017, 07:56 PM
"Something is biologically complex, therefore God exists."


Irreducible complexity arguments, like the human eye, are nonsense intelligent design fallacies. Posivitism abused.

resister
03-25-2017, 07:59 PM
"Something is biologically complex, therefore God exists."


Irreducible complexity arguments, like the human eye, are nonsense intelligent design fallacies. Posivitism abused.
It takes WWAAAYYYYY more faith to believe that from nothing, sprang everything, especially considering our minds cant even conceive of nothing.

Doublejack
03-25-2017, 08:46 PM
It takes WWAAAYYYYY more faith to believe that from nothing, sprang everything, especially considering our minds cant even conceive of nothing.

Just because science can't explain everything yet doesn't automatically mean "magic invisible people" did it.



edit: Moreover - If proof of God exists that means God is real. All I need is proof.

resister
03-25-2017, 08:48 PM
"Something is biologically complex, therefore God exists."


Irreducible complexity arguments, like the human eye, are nonsense intelligent design fallacies. Posivitism abused.
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/24907137/what-if-i-told-you-what-if-i-told-you-being-atheist-doesnt-makes-you-intelligent.jpg

resister
03-25-2017, 08:49 PM
Just because science can't explain everything yet doesn't automatically mean "magic invisible people" did it.



edit: Moreover - If proof of God exists that means God is real. All I need is proof.
What if I told you, see above!

Doublejack
03-25-2017, 08:50 PM
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/24907137/what-if-i-told-you-what-if-i-told-you-being-atheist-doesnt-makes-you-intelligent.jpg


I would agree.

edit: To the same degree that believing in a God doesn't make one intelligent.

Subdermal
03-25-2017, 08:52 PM
"Something is biologically complex, therefore God exists."

Irreducible complexity arguments, like the human eye, are nonsense intelligent design fallacies. Posivitism abused.

You are out of your depth, intentional conflating arguments to avoid confronting a good one.

If the odds of something being an accident are 10^686, the odds are it wasn't an accident.

resister
03-25-2017, 08:55 PM
I would agree.

edit: To the same degree that believing in a God doesn't make one intelligent.
So believing in a "magic" theory where everything came from nothing is somehow a superior position to the far more logical position of a Creator? How many things on earth can you see that have no creator, at the very least when you look at life forms you can be certain the parents made them, no?

Doublejack
03-25-2017, 08:57 PM
So believing in a "magic" theory where everything came from nothing is somehow a superior position to the far more logical position of a Creator? How many things on earth can you see that have no creator, at the very least when you look at life forms you can be certain the parents made them, no?

Science doesn't say everything came from nothing. Nor have I.

Again - Not knowing one thing does not prove a magic person is the answer.

resister
03-25-2017, 09:03 PM
Science doesn't say everything came from nothing. Nor have I.

Again - Not knowing one thing does not prove a magic person is the answer.
Science has no idea as to how it all came to be, instead of admit it, they cook up a theory:rollseyes:There is your "magical thinking"

kilgram
03-25-2017, 09:15 PM
It takes WWAAAYYYYY more faith to believe that from nothing, sprang everything, especially considering our minds cant even conceive of nothing.
No, there is data.

About "God" there is no data. And, also it takes one step more. What is the origin of this God.

kilgram
03-25-2017, 09:17 PM
Science has no idea as to how it all came to be, instead of admit it, they cook up a theory:rollseyes:There is your "magical thinking"
Science explains everything that they have data. Evolution is a fact. Even excepted with most of the non radical religious, for example, the Catholic Church, that at least is a bit intelligent to accept and understand the science. Case that not happens with the extremist religious like evangelists (well, no surprise there).

Newpublius
03-25-2017, 09:28 PM
No, there is data.

About "God" there is no data. And, also it takes one step more. What is the origin of this God.

Its turtles all the way down!

Doublejack
03-25-2017, 09:31 PM
Science has no idea as to how it all came to be, instead of admit it, they cook up a theory:rollseyes:There is your "magical thinking"
Science uses data to come to probable theory. Science fully admits it doesn't know due to the fact that all scientific results are considered theories instead of facts.

Facts don't exist in science and science doesn't claim evolution is a fact. It's a theory .. one with a very significant amount of data to back it up.

Gravity is not a fact either in science but it also has quite a bit of data to back it up. So does evolution.

Magic invisible people? Zero data as it's not possible to prove.

This also does not mean magic invisible people in the sky aren't real. God very well could be a direct part of evolution. Nobody knows.

Science is not in competition with God. It just does it's own thing. If proof of God existed it would be included in scientific theory.

resister
03-25-2017, 09:32 PM
No, there is data.

About "God" there is no data. And, also it takes one step more. What is the origin of this God.
Can you link me to this data? Also it takes one step more, where did this "BIG BANG" come from?

The Xl
03-25-2017, 09:37 PM
There is plenty of scientific conjecture that is just as ridiculous as what religious types parrot. The big bang, for example.

resister
03-25-2017, 09:38 PM
Science uses data to come to probable theory. Science fully admits it doesn't know due to the fact that all scientific results are considered theories instead of facts.

Facts don't exist in science and science doesn't claim evolution is a fact. It's a theory .. one with a very significant amount of data to back it up.

Gravity is not a fact either in science but it also has quite a bit of data to back it up. So does evolution.

Magic invisible people? Zero data as it's not possible to prove.

This also does not mean magic invisible people in the sky aren't real. God very well could be a direct part of evolution. Nobody knows.

Science is not in competition with God. It just does it's own thing. If proof of God existed it would be included in scientific theory.
I could share my experiences with you on a personal level, but I don't think you would give it any thought other than dismissal.

Suffice it to say, To those that need an explanation, no explanation will do. To those that believe, no explanation is needed.

You are seeking answers in the outer, temporal world. If you really want to know, keep your mind open (agnostic) Ask the inner self to reveal the creator.

resister
03-25-2017, 09:41 PM
Science explains everything that they have data. Evolution is a fact. Even excepted with most of the non radical religious, for example, the Catholic Church, that at least is a bit intelligent to accept and understand the science. Case that not happens with the extremist religious like evangelists (well, no surprise there).17605

Doublejack
03-25-2017, 09:42 PM
There is plenty of scientific conjecture that is just as ridiculous as what religious types parrot. The big bang, for example.

There is a very big difference.

Science admits it is a theory based on current available evidence.

Religion ... nearly all of them claim their magic dude in the sky is a fact and quite a lot of people have been and are being killed over it/them. With even less evidence.

Doublejack
03-25-2017, 09:46 PM
I could share my experiences with you on a personal level, but I don't think you would give it any thought other than dismissal.

Suffice it to say, To those that need an explanation, no explanation will do. To those that believe, no explanation is needed.

You are seeking answers in the outer, temporal world. If you really want to know, keep your mind open (agnostic) Ask the inner self to reveal the creator.

I have my own personal experiences that I cannot logically explain and am still seeking answers to. Pretty big things that I may never understand or find answer to. It is what it is.

In no way would I disrespect anyone's beliefs or discount them.

I simply don't wan't it involved with lawmaking is all.

Dangermouse
03-25-2017, 09:47 PM
There is plenty of scientific conjecture that is just as ridiculous as what religious types parrot. The big bang, for example.

What is it you find ridiculous about the big bang? What aspect of the theory irks you most?

resister
03-25-2017, 09:47 PM
There is a very big difference.

Science admits it is a theory based on current available evidence.

Religion ... nearly all of them claim their magic dude in the sky is a fact and quite a lot of people have been and are being killed over it/them. With even less evidence.
Actually, people of faith ( this one at least) will tell you GOD cant be proven, if you have no faith you cant see the unseen. Just a but of faith ( even agnostic ) is enough to open the door. If you go thru life flat out denying and demanding irrefutable proof, you will likely never see.

NapRover
03-25-2017, 09:50 PM
I would agree.

edit: To the same degree that believing in a God doesn't make one intelligent.
It does make one wise, though.

Dangermouse
03-25-2017, 09:50 PM
I could share my experiences with you on a personal level, but I don't think you would give it any thought other than dismissal.

Suffice it to say, To those that need an explanation, no explanation will do. To those that believe, no explanation is needed.

You are seeking answers in the outer, temporal world. If you really want to know, keep your mind open (agnostic) Ask the inner self to reveal the creator.

Your experiences and subsequent interpretations are subjective, unique to you and nobody else.

resister
03-25-2017, 09:50 PM
What is it you find ridiculous about the big bang? What aspect of the theory irks you most?
May I? That we are to believe that there was this nothing that suddenly gave rise to everything as we know it? How long was nothing their? Why did nothing suddenly spring forth? This takes way more faith than a belief in a creator.

resister
03-25-2017, 09:51 PM
Your experiences and subsequent interpretations are subjective, unique to you and nobody else.Very true. Just like those of the big bang scientist!

Doublejack
03-25-2017, 10:03 PM
It does make one wise, though.
Islamic extremists believe the same thing though unfortunately.

Green Arrow
03-25-2017, 10:03 PM
Why does it fucking matter?

Starman
03-25-2017, 10:04 PM
Assume you can't explain it. Assume, too, not being able to explain it mean it didn't happen. OK.
Explain intelligent design.

"Assume" is your word, not mine. I challenged YOU to explain, with your profound, presumptuous intellect. You made ZERO effort.

Now to address the rest of your wordplay. Because something cannot be understood does not begin to mean it does not exist.
"OK"?

A biochemist has written a book on intelligent design. I read it. Have you? Now some more about science that seems to be beyond your grasp. Science does not REQUIRE a theory. It does not REQUIRE nor DEMAND an explanation. We may simply say that we don't know.
In fact, what we know is pitifully small. This is not to be expected from a universe that made itself, out of nothing.

Newpublius
03-25-2017, 10:05 PM
What is it you find ridiculous about the big bang? What aspect of the theory irks you most?

What caused the Big Bang?
If God caused it then what caused God?

A rational universe has causation and with a Big Bang or first movement, primus movens, argument, you have an uncaused cause.

Doesn't make Big Bang ridiculous of course but I'd suggest humans are really curious why ANYTHING exists AT ALL and ultimately it comes down to, no matter which philosophical route one goes down, either God or 'just because' and both really aren't very satisfying on many levels.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Standing Wolf
03-25-2017, 10:05 PM
Primitive Man could not understand lighting strikes, earthquakes, or the lights in the sky, so he invented gods and other unseen forces in an attempt to explain them. Today, Science can explain those things; if we had waited for Religion to do so, those phenomena would still be total mysteries.

As others have said, the existence of complexity in nature does not require that we turn to superstition in frustration. A little humility is often called for in this type of situation - a recognition that in some ways humankind is still in its infancy in the matter of understanding the universe.

Mister D
03-25-2017, 10:06 PM
It does make one wise, though.
More importantly for our purposes it makes one intellectually consistent.

Starman
03-25-2017, 10:10 PM
You are out of your depth, decedent, intentional conflating arguments to avoid confronting a good one.
If the odds of something being an accident are 10^686, the odds are it wasn't an accident.

So said evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, an extremely hateful socialist atheist. His definition of "impossible," as written in one of his books I have read, is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. Let's explore statistics a little more, just in the specific case of human hemoglobin.

The probability of building a chain of 528 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages, as opposed to non-peptide linkages, is ½ to the 527th power or 1 chance in 10158.


The probability of attaining, at random, only L-amino acids, as opposed to R-amino acids, in a peptide chain 528 amino acid residues long is (1/2)528 or again 1 chance in 10158.


Combining just these three factors, and not counting the folding possibilities, whichare of course daunting themselves, we get 10686 times 10158 times 10158 or in other words 101002 combinations of sequence, chirality, and bond. Only 1 of these 101002 different combinations represents normal human hemoglobin.


As a means of comparing a number as enormous as 101002 , remember that the number of fundamental particles in the universe is approximately 1080. And remember, Dawkins defined "impossible" as one chance in 1040.


Frog + Kiss (by Princess) = Prince ----- Fairy Tale
Frog + millions of years = Prince ------ science

Starman
03-25-2017, 10:18 PM
No, there is data.
About "God" there is no data.

Absolutely untrue. Countless books have been written, beginning with the Holy Bible, continuing with apologetics, archaeology, history, and science books without end.


And, also it takes one step more. What is the origin of this God.

Please see the one hour video on YouTube.com, titled "A Matter of Gravity," by Professor John Lennox, of Cambridge University.

He says, "If somebody made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?"

Why didn't atheists ever think of this absolutely elegant fact stated in the Bible? God calls Himself "I am."

Two things are truly inconceivable.
1. That everything simply "happened." From nothing.
2. That God made everything.

The first is utterly absurd, and unscientific.
The second is utterly elegant, and satisfying to those who are not so arrogant and pretentious as to think themselves as the smartest
beings in the universe.... like Richard Dawkins, who has hideous teeth despite great wealth.

Starman
03-25-2017, 10:23 PM
Science explains everything that they have data. Evolution is a fact. .

Repeating something endlessly does not make it so.

After Seeing The Impossibility Of Evolution, These Scientists Made The Following Observations:
“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity… Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler, 1985), pp. 328,342
"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..." (Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.)

"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational." (Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"Evolution is faith, a religion." (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather." (Dr. David Berlinski)


I can provide another hundred or more such scientific refutations of Darwinism. But as Richard Dawkins says, "There is no need to multiply up examples."

Some of my critiques of his many errors and misrepresentations will be posted here since many of you have shown interest in this subject.
I corresponded with the Great Hater some years ago, quoting him chapter and verse. The best he could come up with was to call me "stupid."
How typical of Darwinists and atheists.

decedent
03-25-2017, 10:27 PM
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/24907137/what-if-i-told-you-what-if-i-told-you-being-atheist-doesnt-makes-you-intelligent.jpg


I'm not an atheist.


You are out of your depth, intentional conflating arguments to avoid confronting a good one.


If the odds of something being an accident are 10^686, the odds are it wasn't an accident.

Sorry, but complexity doesn't prove the existence of God.


This OP's argument is a failed attempt at positivism.

Starman
03-25-2017, 10:30 PM
As others have said, the existence of complexity in nature does not require that we turn to superstition in frustration. A little humility is often called for in this type of situation - a recognition that in some ways humankind is still in its infancy in the matter of understanding the universe.

You and your atheist friends have strayed, intentionally, from the subject of the thread. This is a violation of the terms of this forum, trying to derail it. Now since you place such faith in science, explain the insuperable statistics of hemoglobin synthesis - just one polypeptide. And of course there are many thousands more, but I'm only asking for this one.
That should not be asking too much. Give it a try.

Starman
03-25-2017, 10:33 PM
This is the schematic for a NEC monitor.
https://theevolutionfraud.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/nec-monitor.jpg?w=584
This monitor performs a valuable function and is clearly designed, that is to say, it did not develop itself.


This is the schematic for a single cell.
Note the similarities of the two schematic designs.
https://theevolutionfraud.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/cell-chemistry.jpg?w=584
However, unlike the NEC monitor schematic, the cell schematic:

Cannot be constructed by humans in a laboratory, but only by another living cell,
Can feed (provide power) to itself,
Can repair itself,
Can reproduce itself,
Can transport itself from place to place via chemical means,
Can modify its own structure, as when muscles are developed through exercise.
To pretend that sophisticated electronics were designed by educated engineers, but far more sophisticated cells and animals made themselves, via absurd and statistically impossible syntheses is totally absurd.

NapRover
03-25-2017, 10:41 PM
More importantly for our purposes it makes one intellectually consistent.

There either is or isn't a God. I say that if there's not, then I guess we'll all kill each other off and that'll be the end of the big freak accident: our existence. If there is, then there's a great deal to be thankful and hopeful for. And extremely unwise to not want to take advantage of it, especially given the relative ease of it.

decedent
03-25-2017, 10:47 PM
Its turtles all the way down!

World Turtle theory:

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/toriko-fan-fiction/images/5/56/World_Turtle.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150724033227


Obligatory turtle eating a strawberry:

http://i.imgur.com/Om0zSY4.gif

resister
03-25-2017, 10:53 PM
The overwhelming majority of Democrats are atheist.

Green Arrow
03-25-2017, 11:14 PM
The overwhelming majority of Democrats are atheist.

And?

NapRover
03-25-2017, 11:21 PM
Why does it $#@!ing matter?
If one doesn't have faith, nothing matters except you surviving and getting everything you can during your unexplained, meaningless existence.

resister
03-25-2017, 11:36 PM
And?
Just a telling observation, political party is there religion.

Green Arrow
03-25-2017, 11:44 PM
If one doesn't have faith, nothing matters except you surviving and getting everything you can during your unexplained, meaningless existence.
I'm a very deeply religious person. The question stands.

resister
03-25-2017, 11:53 PM
Being religious is not necessary to have a relationship with GOD ( or fill in your blank)

Standing Wolf
03-25-2017, 11:56 PM
You and your atheist friends have strayed, intentionally, from the subject of the thread. This is a violation of the terms of this forum, trying to derail it. Now since you place such faith in science, explain the insuperable statistics of hemoglobin synthesis - just one polypeptide. And of course there are many thousands more, but I'm only asking for this one.
That should not be asking too much. Give it a try.

For anyone being completely honest and logically consistent, there is no barrier to believing in both God and evolution. Science does not seek to explain away God, and many scientific professionals, including a couple in my own family, are also serious, committed Christians. Those who use the excuse of science to reject the possibility of God's existence are as misguided in their reasoning as those who reject the possibility of evolution having happened because it's not the way they imagine "God would have done it." I've read and collected books about evolutionary theory by Christian authors going back to 1925, and I know, of course, that many preceded that; Darwin, himself, was a Christian, after all.

It seems to me that today's Creationists and so-called Intelligent Design fanciers have a very difficult time accepting and giving pride of place to what Christians for more than two thousand years accepted - a little thing called "faith". They are running frantically around pointing to what they represent as "God's signature" on this or that bit of the physical universe...as though faith were somehow not enough. (Remember Hebrews 11:1? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."?)

The bottom line is simply that Science and Religion are different realms, and the truths of one do not dissipate or disprove the truths of the other.

William
03-26-2017, 12:14 AM
This is the science section - not the religion and philosophy section. I respect all genuinely held beliefs, religious and philosophical, but I would suggest two things. The first being that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the theory of abiogenesis - it is a totally different theory, and the second being that this be moved to the religion and philosophy section.

I simply don't understand why it is important to those who hold certain beliefs to have everyone share those beliefs, or to have society enforce those beliefs by means of education and law. And if you have genuine faith, isn't that a matter between your God and yourself - why does it need to involve anyone else? Surely we only have to look at societies where religious beliefs are enforced as the basis of law and custom to be scared of that?

I think a polite and considerate person should respect everyone's beliefs, but maybe only to the extent recommended by H.L.Mencken -

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

resister
03-26-2017, 12:19 AM
For anyone being completely honest and logically consistent, there is no barrier to believing in both God and evolution. Science does not seek to explain away God, and many scientific professionals, including a couple in my own family, are also serious, committed Christians. Those who use the excuse of science to reject the possibility of God's existence are as misguided in their reasoning as those who reject the possibility of evolution having happened because it's not the way they imagine "God would have done it." I've read and collected books about evolutionary theory by Christian authors going back to 1925, and I know, of course, that many preceded that; Darwin, himself, was a Christian, after all.

It seems to me that today's Creationists and so-called Intelligent Design fanciers have a very difficult time accepting and giving pride of place to what Christians for more than two thousand years accepted - a little thing called "faith". They are running frantically around pointing to what they represent as "God's signature" on this or that bit of the physical universe...as though faith were somehow not enough. (Remember Hebrews 11:1? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."?)

The bottom line is simply that Science and Religion are different realms, and the truths of one do not dissipate or disprove the truths of the other.
:applause:
It is kinda like the equivalent comparison in the field of politics!

Ethereal
03-26-2017, 02:18 AM
SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 528 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.
So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 528th power or 10 to the 686th power.


Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^686 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.


Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 600 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.


It's abundantly obvious you cannot ever begin to take the first step in demonstrating YOUR pretense of "understanding abiogenesis."
But try anyway.

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)
Why are you asking a question if you've already decided that any answer given is unacceptable? Seems a bit silly, don't you think?

stjames1_53
03-26-2017, 04:05 AM
let's go with this for a minute.
The claim is that all came from a single atom that exploded and introduced all things necessary for life to form here/everywhere. OK, now comes the one dollar question: What caused the one single atom to "explode?"
IF there was only one atom, there existed nothing to cause such a reaction since there was nothing before.
How did that explosion occur?

kilgram
03-26-2017, 05:31 AM
let's go with this for a minute.
The claim is that all came from a single atom that exploded and introduced all things necessary for life to form here/everywhere. OK, now comes the one dollar question: What caused the one single atom to "explode?"
IF there was only one atom, there existed nothing to cause such a reaction since there was nothing before.
How did that explosion occur?
Science answers according to the data at the moment. According to the data and information we have, that is what happened.

The how? Because the accumulation of energy was so big that it could not be contained any more.

kilgram
03-26-2017, 05:33 AM
If one doesn't have faith, nothing matters except you surviving and getting everything you can during your unexplained, meaningless existence.
That is a nonsense. It does not have any sense.

I don't need faith to enjoy my life.

stjames1_53
03-26-2017, 05:41 AM
Science answers according to the data at the moment. According to the data and information we have, that is what happened.

The how? Because the accumulation of energy was so big that it could not be contained any more.

more theory...............I would like a link to that theory..............
something had to feed it that "energy" If there was nothing else (energy), it could not absorb any energy, much less cause it to explode.
I'm not deriding your theory, I just want proof. And, I'm not claiming any religious connotations. Let's remove religion
If all there was, was a single atom, and that is all that existed, the claim of absorbing energy fails. There were no other contributing factors available.

kilgram
03-26-2017, 06:50 AM
more theory...............I would like a link to that theory..............
something had to feed it that "energy" If there was nothing else (energy), it could not absorb any energy, much less cause it to explode.
I'm not deriding your theory, I just want proof. And, I'm not claiming any religious connotations. Let's remove religion
If all there was, was a single atom, and that is all that existed, the claim of absorbing energy fails. There were no other contributing factors available.
Due to the pressure it was raising the energy.

I am in my mobile phone, now and I cannot do more research just from my memory and it is not my expertise area. And also it is difficult to explain for me in English as I am not native to that language.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

stjames1_53
03-26-2017, 06:55 AM
Due to the pressure it was raising the energy.

I am in my mobile phone, now and I cannot do more research just from my memory and it is not my expertise area. And also it is difficult to explain for me in English as I am not native to that language.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

if all there was, as a single atom, there can be no other forces at work. No energy to be absorbed. Science claims there was nothing before the single atom theory. The Big Bang is unexplained. It just happened. It works against the nature of Physics.
But to take it on faith, that this was indeed the reason is no different than God creating the universe. So, let's not theorize about the Big Bang. Science is convinced that this is what happened, but offer no proof. It is a theory that relies upon faith.

kilgram
03-26-2017, 07:07 AM
if all there was, as a single atom, there can be no other forces at work. No energy to be absorbed. Science claims there was nothing before the single atom theory. The Big Bang is unexplained. It just happened. It works against the nature of Physics.
But to take it on faith, that this was indeed the reason is no different than God creating the universe. So, let's not theorize about the Big Bang. Science is convinced that this is what happened, but offer no proof. It is a theory that relies upon faith.
It was shrinking until it could not support the energy.

Also this thread is about evolution no big bang.

The big bang theory is based on the data we have at the moment. There is no faith. If appears new data proving that the big bang theory is wrong, the whole scientific community will be happy to refuse that theory as it has been proved wrong.

Scientific theories must be falsable, and Big Bang theory is like the evolution theory and every scientific theory.

Faith is not falsable, if it is not falsable it is not valid for science.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:15 AM
It takes WWAAAYYYYY more faith to believe that from nothing, sprang everything, especially considering our minds cant even conceive of nothing.


About the only place I see anything resembling that claim is Genesis.

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:17 AM
You are out of your depth, intentional conflating arguments to avoid confronting a good one.

If the odds of something being an accident are 10^686, the odds are it wasn't an accident.

Probability, other than 0, admits possibility.

Who argues it was an accident?

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:20 AM
Science has no idea as to how it all came to be, instead of admit it, they cook up a theory:rollseyes:There is your "magical thinking"


That's not science. Based on observation and experiment, iow, data, science offers hypothetical explanations. It then proceeds to try and falsify those and come up with more powerful explanations.


I have yet to see any explanation for Intelligent Design.

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:22 AM
Can you link me to this data? Also it takes one step more, where did this "BIG BANG" come from?

Quantum fluctuations.

Newpublius
03-26-2017, 08:25 AM
About the only place I see anything resembling that claim is Genesis.
Or the Big Bang. Meaning of course, whatever existed at the time of the Big Bang either sprang from nothing, or existed already.

Why does anything exist? Either things began to exist....in which case we have the conundrum of why that happened (and incidentally what came BEFORE that). Or things always existed in which case we are left with every cause being the penultimate cause....an infinite regression -- turtles all the way down (philosophically this is a foundation of quicksand!)


Quantum fluctuations.

And why were these quanta fluctuating? hehe

Now let's assume that this is truly the first movement, the primus movens, AND we will assume no divine intervention either. You are then left with the uncaused cause, and the answer to the question of why were the quantum fluctuations becomes: 'just because'

Insert God into that equation and the same question of "Well, why did God exist?" -- ie God then becomes the primus movens, and the same result, 'just because'

Uncaused cause defies human rationality

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:33 AM
"Assume" is your word, not mine. I challenged YOU to explain, with your profound, presumptuous intellect. You made ZERO effort.

Now to address the rest of your wordplay. Because something cannot be understood does not begin to mean it does not exist.
"OK"?

A biochemist has written a book on intelligent design. I read it. Have you? Now some more about science that seems to be beyond your grasp. Science does not REQUIRE a theory. It does not REQUIRE nor DEMAND an explanation. We may simply say that we don't know.
In fact, what we know is pitifully small. This is not to be expected from a universe that made itself, out of nothing.






I was first showing your logic, name;y, if you can explain it, it's not true, then applied the same logic to your belief in intelligent design. Seeing that, you move your goalpost.


You are of course referring to Michael Behe. Yes, I've read his books. Have you read the responses to Behe by Kenneth R. Miller? He's the biologist who exposed and shut Behe down in court.


Science is all about explanation. Your OP demands an explanation.

Agnostics says they don't know. If you don't know, what are you arguing?

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:35 AM
So said evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, an extremely hateful socialist atheist. His definition of "impossible," as written in one of his books I have read, is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. Let's explore statistics a little more, just in the specific case of human hemoglobin.

The probability of building a chain of 528 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages, as opposed to non-peptide linkages, is ½ to the 527th power or 1 chance in 10158.


The probability of attaining, at random, only L-amino acids, as opposed to R-amino acids, in a peptide chain 528 amino acid residues long is (1/2)528 or again 1 chance in 10158.


Combining just these three factors, and not counting the folding possibilities, whichare of course daunting themselves, we get 10686 times 10158 times 10158 or in other words 101002 combinations of sequence, chirality, and bond. Only 1 of these 101002 different combinations represents normal human hemoglobin.


As a means of comparing a number as enormous as 101002 , remember that the number of fundamental particles in the universe is approximately 1080. And remember, Dawkins defined "impossible" as one chance in 1040.


Frog + Kiss (by Princess) = Prince ----- Fairy Tale
Frog + millions of years = Prince ------ science


Nice ad hom attack on Dawkins.

Again, probability admits possibility.


Criminy, I haven't heard these arguments since ID was defeated in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:38 AM
This is the schematic for a NEC monitor.
https://theevolutionfraud.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/nec-monitor.jpg?w=584
This monitor performs a valuable function and is clearly designed, that is to say, it did not develop itself.


This is the schematic for a single cell.
Note the similarities of the two schematic designs.
https://theevolutionfraud.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/cell-chemistry.jpg?w=584
However, unlike the NEC monitor schematic, the cell schematic:

Cannot be constructed by humans in a laboratory, but only by another living cell,
Can feed (provide power) to itself,
Can repair itself,
Can reproduce itself,
Can transport itself from place to place via chemical means,
Can modify its own structure, as when muscles are developed through exercise.
To pretend that sophisticated electronics were designed by educated engineers, but far more sophisticated cells and animals made themselves, via absurd and statistically impossible syntheses is totally absurd.


Why? All you're doing is making claims. Odd claims at that given that no one argues something from nothing just as no one argues cells make themselves.

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:45 AM
This is the science section - not the religion and philosophy section. I respect all genuinely held beliefs, religious and philosophical, but I would suggest two things. The first being that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the theory of abiogenesis - it is a totally different theory, and the second being that this be moved to the religion and philosophy section.

I simply don't understand why it is important to those who hold certain beliefs to have everyone share those beliefs, or to have society enforce those beliefs by means of education and law. And if you have genuine faith, isn't that a matter between your God and yourself - why does it need to involve anyone else? Surely we only have to look at societies where religious beliefs are enforced as the basis of law and custom to be scared of that?

I think a polite and considerate person should respect everyone's beliefs, but maybe only to the extent recommended by H.L.Mencken -

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."


Adherents of ID claim it to be scientific.

Some are scientists. Like Behe, a biochemist. As he explains, he accepts the three main pillars of evolution, mutation, selection, inheritance as explanation for almost everything. Then he says things like the eye cannot be expalined, so he abandons science and takes a leap of faith. Kenneth Miller, biologist, explains the evolution of the eye.

Crepitus
03-26-2017, 08:45 AM
World Turtle theory:

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/toriko-fan-fiction/images/5/56/World_Turtle.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150724033227


Obligatory turtle eating a strawberry:

http://i.imgur.com/Om0zSY4.gif

That is a big-ass strawberry!

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:48 AM
let's go with this for a minute.
The claim is that all came from a single atom that exploded and introduced all things necessary for life to form here/everywhere. OK, now comes the one dollar question: What caused the one single atom to "explode?"
IF there was only one atom, there existed nothing to cause such a reaction since there was nothing before.
How did that explosion occur?


Sorry, that's not big bang. Big bang says something more akin to everything, every atom, every proton, quark, etc, in the universe was compressed to a single point, and that expanded, and is still expanding.

Subdermal
03-26-2017, 08:56 AM
There is a very big difference.

Science admits it is a theory based on current available evidence.

Religion ... nearly all of them claim their magic dude in the sky is a fact and quite a lot of people have been and are being killed over it/them. With even less evidence.

The OP is no different than you; just on opposite sides. He's attempting to support his strongly held belief with evidence.

What you are doing, however, is attempting to delegitimize his effort by pigeonholing him to a claim that he's uttering FACT.

He - like I - is using evidence, and mathematical probability. Like it or not, we accept statistic probability in our current reality. We use it for nearly everything.

Science, and the scientific community, are two different things. Science is merely a discipline; a tool which harnesses known physical laws (mathematically based) to enable a collection of knowledge and draw conclusions in some cases and form hypotheses in others.

The scientific community, however, is filled with personalities, which introduce agendas into such efforts. One such effort was the desire to explain reality without requiring religious connotation.

You are doing it here. Do you actually think that people - atheists/agnostics/etc - wouldn't have their own personal biases spill over into their scientific endeavors? That - worse - they wouldn't fully flavor or color their efforts in many cases?

No one reasonable thinks that. Dishonest people claim it, however. Darwinism, a very specific branch of evolutionary science, for instance, is littered with such efforts. Punctuated equilibrium/random mutation are such examples. They are an attempt to fill in the blanks in that scientific discipine without having to confront the possibility of the alternative: that it isn't random; that is is intentional.

So when you claim that the religious claim things as fact, you should worry about the log in your own eye. The atheist does at least as much, and does so with the express purpose of delegitimizing the belief and faith of those who believe in God.

The reverse, however, is not true. The religious in today's world do not seek to delegitimize science, or scientific pursuit; that is solely the claim of those who do not believe in God.

What we know of our universe tells us that the order of it; the structure of it, is magnificently complex, and required a timed sequence of events and such precise subatomic order as to be - essentially - mathematically impossible to have been an accident.

That's the core footing of the OP's argument, and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. If we are going to base our secular beliefs on math, there is nothing wrong with expanding that to our religious beliefs as well. It is perfectly logical and reasonable to conclude - in the absence of an alternative proof - that the mathematical improbability of our reality having been constructed by accident - that it was Intentional.

And with that, embrace all the eschatological and dogmatic connotation it brings.

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:58 AM
Or the Big Bang. Meaning of course, whatever existed at the time of the Big Bang either sprang from nothing, or existed already.

Why does anything exist? Either things began to exist....in which case we have the conundrum of why that happened (and incidentally what came BEFORE that). Or things always existed in which case we are left with every cause being the penultimate cause....an infinite regression -- turtles all the way down (philosophically this is a foundation of quicksand!)



And why were these quanta fluctuating? hehe

Now let's assume that this is truly the first movement, the primus movens, AND we will assume no divine intervention either. You are then left with the uncaused cause, and the answer to the question of why were the quantum fluctuations becomes: 'just because'

Insert God into that equation and the same question of "Well, why did God exist?" -- ie God then becomes the primus movens, and the same result, 'just because'

Uncaused cause defies human rationality



Not the way I understand it. Matter/energy existed, it's what expanded ("big banged").

Heck, even Genesis is ambiguous, the Hebrew for create meaning either from nothing or from something.

Why is not a scientific question. But I'd go with turtles.

Quanta fluctuate states. It's just what they do.

We/science doesn't know what happened before that. It's explanations involve space and time, both of which came into existence in the Big Bang.

Subdermal
03-26-2017, 09:10 AM
Not the way I understand it. Matter/energy existed, it's what expanded ("big banged").


No, that is incorrect: as a consequence of the laws of entropy, our current scientific understanding does not support the notion of matter existing prior to the moment of the birth of the universe. We observe this through the known expansion of the universe - moving outward from a single point - and that matter decays.


Heck, even Genesis is ambiguous, the Hebrew for create meaning either from nothing or from something.

Why is not a scientific question. But I'd go with turtles.

Quanta fluctuate states. It's just what they do.

We/science doesn't know what happened before that. It's explanations involve space and time, both of which came into existence in the Big Bang.

If space/time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, neither then could have matter - that's the point. That's why baseless theories have been created: theories like 'multiverse' or 'imaginary math'.

All efforts by those who cannot abide by the notion that a hypothesis outside the laws of science should be credible.

And no one religious using the proper argument is challenging that 'unknown'. They are merely using the fact that it is unknown to offer the scientific hypothesis: it was created.

As far as scientific hypotheses go, it is rather strong, having not yet been refuted in our existence.

Here's the rub: science - people of science, particularly those who do not believe in God, and have no trouble whatsoever attempting to use the discipline of science to fortify their beliefs, either overtly or with subtlety - do not at all mind maligning such 'theories' of the existence of an unknown and obviously powerful entity (if the premise is accepted: that there is in fact a Creator), by saying that it cannot be supported by science.

The problem is that such a proclamation renders their own efforts illegitimate as well, as science is based upon the Laws of Nature which also didn't exist prior to the existence of space/time.

If the effort by scientific atheists/agnostics to explain our existence without requiring a 'superior being' to do so is legitimate, then so is promulgating the theory that such a superior being exists.

And - again - that is the core premise of the OP, and he is utilizing one of myriad possible arguments to do so.

Chris
03-26-2017, 09:38 AM
No, that is incorrect: as a consequence of the laws of entropy, our current scientific understanding does not support the notion of matter existing prior to the moment of the birth of the universe. We observe this through the known expansion of the universe - moving outward from a single point - and that matter decays.



If space/time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, neither then could have matter - that's the point. That's why baseless theories have been created: theories like 'multiverse' or 'imaginary math'.

All efforts by those who cannot abide by the notion that a hypothesis outside the laws of science should be credible.

And no one religious using the proper argument is challenging that 'unknown'. They are merely using the fact that it is unknown to offer the scientific hypothesis: it was created.

As far as scientific hypotheses go, it is rather strong, having not yet been refuted in our existence.

Here's the rub: science - people of science, particularly those who do not believe in God, and have no trouble whatsoever attempting to use the discipline of science to fortify their beliefs, either overtly or with subtlety - do not at all mind maligning such 'theories' of the existence of an unknown and obviously powerful entity (if the premise is accepted: that there is in fact a Creator), by saying that it cannot be supported by science.

The problem is that such a proclamation renders their own efforts illegitimate as well, as science is based upon the Laws of Nature which also didn't exist prior to the existence of space/time.

If the effort by scientific atheists/agnostics to explain our existence without requiring a 'superior being' to do so is legitimate, then so is promulgating the theory that such a superior being exists.

And - again - that is the core premise of the OP, and he is utilizing one of myriad possible arguments to do so.



...as a consequence of the laws of entropy, our current scientific understanding does not support the notion of matter existing prior to the moment of the birth of the universe. We observe this through the known expansion of the universe - moving outward from a single point - and that matter decays.

Fact, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Again running counter to any nothing about something from nothing.

Entropy is a measure of disorder.

But matter/energy did exist, just compressed into a singularity, before big bang. Just not space and time.



What hypothesis outside science is there?

All scientists do is restrict their work to scientific methodology. Outside that many are religious. But religious beliefs also lie outside the realm of knowledge, knowledge generally considered to be justified true belief.

The OP is baloney. It defeats itself by applying it's own logic to its claims.

Subdermal
03-26-2017, 09:51 AM
Fact, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Again running counter to any nothing about something from nothing.

Which means this topic runs counter to any legitimate attempt to utilize scientific reasoning to explain it, as any scientific reasoning is based upon laws and understandings which, by your own admission, did not exist prior to the popping into existence of space and time.

But matter/energy did exist, just compressed into a singularity, before big bang. Just not space and time.

You are projecting your own biases on to this notion, first by calling such an 'entity' a 'singularity'; second by claiming that such a singularly is 'matter', and third, by characterizing its condition: 'compressed'.

None of those attempts are accurate. They require exactly as much faith as simply lumping them into the explanation of creation as a reason.

It's just a different approach, and that's what people like me have been attempting to explain for a long time.


What hypothesis outside science is there?

All scientists do is restrict their work to scientific methodology. Outside that many are religious. But religious beliefs also lie outside the realm of knowledge, knowledge generally considered to be justified true belief.

The OP is baloney. It defeats itself by applying it's own logic to its claims.

No, scientists do not simply restrict their work to scientific methodology. As I just demonstrated with your own words - as someone who does not believe in a Higher Being (IIRC) - it is unavoidable to contaminate such an effort with your own beliefs on the matter.

Subdermal
03-26-2017, 09:55 AM
If one possesses sufficient intellect, then they are capable of becoming aware of a problem with the notion of 'a singularity' and a 'big bang' without injecting intent.

It has to do with the very notion of Time.

If there is no Sentience behind something which 'Big Banged', and if, in fact, this was simply 'compressed matter' that arbitrarily exploded, thus bringing into existence both space and time...

...what chose that one moment to do so?

It requires a suspension of disbelief in order to sufficiently muse upon that question and neatly avoid the logical conclusion that it was an instigated event. It is, as the very least, more logically defensible than merely claiming it to be an accident of nature, when Nature itself didn't even exist until it happened.

Chris
03-26-2017, 10:04 AM
If one possesses sufficient intellect, then they are capable of becoming aware of a problem with the notion of 'a singularity' and a 'big bang' without injecting intent.

It has to do with the very notion of Time.

If there is no Sentience behind something which 'Big Banged', and if, in fact, this was simply 'compressed matter' that arbitrarily exploded, thus bringing into existence both space and time...

...what chose that one moment to do so?

It requires a suspension of disbelief in order to sufficiently muse upon that question and neatly avoid the logical conclusion that it was an instigated event. It is, as the very least, more logically defensible than merely claiming it to be an accident of nature, when Nature itself didn't even exist until it happened.


Same with any explanation why and how God did it.

So what's this problem with singularity and big bang that has to do with time when time was brought into existence by it?

Choice is a human thing. The universe doesn't choose.

Starman
03-26-2017, 10:11 AM
Fact, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Again running counter to any nothing about something from nothing.

The challenge to Darwinists makes no mention of "matter/energy". Stop trying to change the subject and respond to the challenge posed. It's science.


Entropy is a measure of disorder.But matter/energy did exist, just compressed into a singularity, before big bang. Just not space and time.What hypothesis outside science is there?

Why don't you posit your "hypothesis" as to how hemoglobin was constructed, scientifically, of course.

The OP is baloney. It defeats itself by applying it's (sic) own logic to its claims.

Instead of making inane, blanket comments, why don't you refute any errors you think you see with facts, hmmmm?
Too difficult for your sophisticated, "scientific" mind, is it, Chris?

I'll answer for you. Yes, yes it is.

Now in *honor* of Chris, I will post some citations from a book by Richard Dawkins, and show his errors and anti-science. Let's see how Chris tries to excuse those away.

Stop trying to derail this thread, Chris. Answer the challenge, or at least TRY to, which you have not begun to do.

Chris
03-26-2017, 10:12 AM
Which means this topic runs counter to any legitimate attempt to utilize scientific reasoning to explain it, as any scientific reasoning is based upon laws and understandings which, by your own admission, did not exist prior to the popping into existence of space and time.


You are projecting your own biases on to this notion, first by calling such an 'entity' a 'singularity'; second by claiming that such a singularly is 'matter', and third, by characterizing its condition: 'compressed'.

None of those attempts are accurate. They require exactly as much faith as simply lumping them into the explanation of creation as a reason.

It's just a different approach, and that's what people like me have been attempting to explain for a long time.



No, scientists do not simply restrict their work to scientific methodology. As I just demonstrated with your own words - as someone who does not believe in a Higher Being (IIRC) - it is unavoidable to contaminate such an effort with your own beliefs on the matter.


Correct, we do not know what came before the Big Bang. But we can infer by the laws of nature that because matter/energy cannot by created or destroyed, it had to exist. That's logical inference, not bias. Those are the names we give for what we know, singularity, matter/energy, compressed. These are all known scientifically.

They're not accurate? Falsify them.

One puts faith in scientific method, not scientific names and facts. Hypotheses/theories are merely the best, most powerful explanations at hand, they are incomplete, tentative, probabilistic. These things too are known.

Raising doubt doesn't falsify. It just raises doubt. But that is already built into science.

Just another approach? As opposed to what?


Science is restricted to the scientific method. I have countered your supposed explanation to the contrary.

Chris
03-26-2017, 10:15 AM
The challenge to Darwinists makes no mention of "matter/energy". Stop trying to change the subject and respond to the challenge posed. It's science.



Why don't you posit your "hypothesis" as to how hemoglobin was constructed, scientifically, of course.


Instead of making inane, blanket comments, why don't you refute any errors you think you see with facts, hmmmm?
Too difficult for your sophisticated, "scientific" mind, is it, Chris?

I'll answer for you. Yes, yes it is.

Now in *honor* of Chris, I will post some citations from a book by Richard Dawkins, and show his errors and anti-science. Let's see how Chris tries to excuse those away.

Stop trying to derail this thread, Chris. Answer the challenge, or at least TRY to, which you have not begun to do.



Soon as you explain Intelligent Design.

I don't care for Dawkins. He tries to use science to attack religion. I think that's misconceived. So your appeals to or ad hom of him won't matter a wit to me.

Chris
03-26-2017, 10:59 AM
Darn, starman runs away to another thread, just when the going got good.

Chris
03-26-2017, 11:55 AM
An excerpt from Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross's Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (https://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=impossibility+of+hemoglobin+synthesis&source=bl&ots=lVMfo0zR8z&sig=b-ZJrc4XIgTqTmrZq4_ByUyjO70&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN08mAwPTSAhXCvBoKHYO9A844ChDoAQgvMAc#v =onepage&q=impossibility%20of%20hemoglobin%20synthesis&f=false):

https://i.snag.gy/o87qU4.jpg

Newpublius
03-26-2017, 12:33 PM
Fact, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Again running counter to any nothing about something from nothing.

Entropy is a measure of disorder.

But matter/energy did exist, just compressed into a singularity, before big bang. Just not space and time.



What hypothesis outside science is there?

All scientists do is restrict their work to scientific methodology. Outside that many are religious. But religious beliefs also lie outside the realm of knowledge, knowledge generally considered to be justified true belief.

The OP is baloney. It defeats itself by applying it's own logic to its claims.

The law of the conservation of mass/energy contains the caveat, under nornal circumstances. If literally true, then matter/energy always existed, 'just because' defying the very essence of the inquiry, ie what caused matter/energy to exeet [or any sub-cause]

kilgram
03-26-2017, 02:14 PM
Just I want to remember that evolution and Big Bang theory are absolute different theories and with no relation between them. Just a saying.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
03-26-2017, 03:05 PM
The law of the conservation of mass/energy contains the caveat, under nornal circumstances. If literally true, then matter/energy always existed, 'just because' defying the very essence of the inquiry, ie what caused matter/energy to exeet [or any sub-cause]

Of course then we go back to ask why does something exist? Which we know does, it's tangible. Science can explain what it is, how it got there, but doesn't address why.

Ethereal
03-26-2017, 03:09 PM
Personally, I don't see any conflict between a belief in God and a believe in evolutionary theory unless you're one of these people who interpret every word and sentence in the Bible 100% literally, which is patently ridiculous given the myriad contradictions and falsities you'd run into. And I've found that trying to talk reason to someone with that kind of view is virtually impossible.

Ethereal
03-26-2017, 03:11 PM
Just I want to remember that evolution and Big Bang theory are absolute different theories and with no relation between them. Just a saying.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

I wouldn't go that far. You could tie them into one another insofar as evolution could be thought of as an emergent process spawned by the big bang. In other words, a unified theory would incorporate evolution and the big bang.

The Xl
03-26-2017, 03:37 PM
What is it you find ridiculous about the big bang? What aspect of the theory irks you most?

The fact that it isn't particularly credible and that there isn't any real evidence to support it. It's really a mild hypothesis at best.

Ethereal
03-26-2017, 03:40 PM
The fact that it isn't particularly credible and that there isn't any real evidence to support it. It's really a mild hypothesis at best.
I think this might be our first big disagreement. There is a lot of evidence that supports the big bang theory, most notably the observed expansion of the universe.

Standing Wolf
03-26-2017, 04:00 PM
Personally, I don't see any conflict between a belief in God and a believe in evolutionary theory unless you're one of these people who interpret every word and sentence in the Bible 100% literally, which is patently ridiculous given the myriad contradictions and falsities you'd run into. And I've found that trying to talk reason to someone with that kind of view is virtually impossible.

I've mentioned this before, but I once got into a discussion with someone who stated that if he ever came to believe in evolution, he would have to stop believing in God. That seems to me to be an indicator of someone with not a whole lot of genuine faith to begin with. I don't believe that people who think that way really, in many cases, understand their own church's doctrines to the extent that they probably should if they're going to go out and try to talk about them and defend them (or what they believe them to be) in public. Many churchgoers who are regularly appalled at the idea of human evolution and try arguing against it would probably be surprised that their own pastors, along with their denomination's theologians, see no problem with accepting it...just like many who buy into the Hal Lindsay-Tim LaHaye 'Left Behind' Pre-millennialist nonsense would be shocked to discover that their own ministers consider it to be so much faddish, unscriptural silliness.

Chris
03-26-2017, 04:38 PM
Personally, I don't see any conflict between a belief in God and a believe in evolutionary theory unless you're one of these people who interpret every word and sentence in the Bible 100% literally, which is patently ridiculous given the myriad contradictions and falsities you'd run into. And I've found that trying to talk reason to someone with that kind of view is virtually impossible.

Nor do I. For all we know God created the Big Bang and evolution.

Starman
03-26-2017, 07:15 PM
"If event A, whose probability is very low (are you kidding me? "Very low?" Do you even have any IDEA of the number of fundamental particles in the universe? 10^90 Compare that number with 10^686 or 10^1,103), does not happen, it simply means tht some other event B, whose probability is equally low, has happened instead."


As Max Planck said, "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong."

As much as it pains me to respond to your comments, I will do so to utterly refute these "authorities," as you surely consider them.

This remark you cited is about as inane, as worthless, as silly as anything I have ever seen on probabilities, and I have seen quite a bit, including nonsense from Richard Dawkins.

Let "Event A" be your attempt to find one special, unique atom in the universe, by specifying its precise location. No need to go anywhere, simply describe precisely WHERE it is located, in which galaxy, which star, which planet, which rock or grain of matter.

Your odds of locating it, on your first and ONLY try are 1 chance in 10 to the 90th power.

What other event happens when you do not precisely describe where it is? NOTHING HAPPENS!
There IS no other Event B. This is verbal mumbo-jumbo, something the Left and Atheists specialize in blathering.
You cannot POSSIBLY find one atom in the universe on your first try. Pretending that you have an infinite number of tries in an infinite length of time changes the probability from 1 in 10 to the 90th to 10 to the 90th in 10 to the 90th.

Now that I have refuted the silly contention you cited, I will ignore anything else you post.

Dr. Who
03-26-2017, 08:11 PM
Regardless of whether you believe in creationism or big bang, you still end up with the question - where did it all begin and we don't have the answer to that question. If you believe in creationism or intelligent design then where did God come from? No matter which way you look at it, we don't really have any answers. Only questions.

resister
03-26-2017, 08:16 PM
Regardless of whether you believe in creationism or big bang, you still end up with the question - where did it all begin and we don't have the answer to that question. If you believe in creationism or intelligent design then where did God come from? No matter which way you look at it, we don't really have any answers. Only questions.
I believe eternity is a reality, ergo no beginning or end. Problem solved.

The fact that time is an illusion, supports my belief.

William
03-26-2017, 08:34 PM
I believe eternity is a reality, ergo no beginning or end. Problem solved.

The fact that time is an illusion, supports my belief.

Well, from what we learnt in class, energy is eternal - it can neither be created nor destroyed - so maybe what we call 'God' is just energy, which has always existed?

And all the rest - Heaven, Hell, an afterlife, etc. is just myths created by various religions for their own purposes?

resister
03-26-2017, 08:38 PM
Well, from what we learnt in class, energy is eternal - it can neither be created nor destroyed - so maybe what we call 'God' is just energy, which has always existed?

And all the rest - Heaven, Hell, an afterlife, etc. is just myths created by various religions for their own purposes?
That sounds most likely to me. We are eternal beings as we are energy ourselves. Only changing forms, doors opening and closing ad finitum.

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:40 PM
As Max Planck said, "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong."

As much as it pains me to respond to your comments, I will do so to utterly refute these "authorities," as you surely consider them.

This remark you cited is about as inane, as worthless, as silly as anything I have ever seen on probabilities, and I have seen quite a bit, including nonsense from Richard Dawkins.

Let "Event A" be your attempt to find one special, unique atom in the universe, by specifying its precise location. No need to go anywhere, simply describe precisely WHERE it is located, in which galaxy, which star, which planet, which rock or grain of matter.

Your odds of locating it, on your first and ONLY try are 1 chance in 10 to the 90th power.

What other event happens when you do not precisely describe where it is? NOTHING HAPPENS!
There IS no other Event B. This is verbal mumbo-jumbo, something the Left and Atheists specialize in blathering.
You cannot POSSIBLY find one atom in the universe on your first try. Pretending that you have an infinite number of tries in an infinite length of time changes the probability from 1 in 10 to the 90th to 10 to the 90th in 10 to the 90th.

Now that I have refuted the silly contention you cited, I will ignore anything else you post.

Number one, you misrepresented what I posted. That's an egregious error. But predictable since you cannot address what I cited without admitting you fail to understand probability. You think low probability means implausible, it doesn't. Even extremely low probability implies possibility.


Your argument is rambling nonsense. Event B would be locating a different atom. And again you repeat your misunderstanding of probability as meaning plausibility, at more exactly, incredulity, the basis of your argument.


You've ignored everything anyone says disagrees with your BS. You cry disagreement is off topic.

LOL

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:42 PM
Regardless of whether you believe in creationism or big bang, you still end up with the question - where did it all begin and we don't have the answer to that question. If you believe in creationism or intelligent design then where did God come from? No matter which way you look at it, we don't really have any answers. Only questions.

Why do you assume a beginning, a first cause, a prime mobile?

resister
03-26-2017, 08:48 PM
Why do you assume a beginning, a first cause, a prime mobile?
The rootless root, the causeless cause.

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:50 PM
Well, from what we learnt in class, energy is eternal - it can neither be created nor destroyed - so maybe what we call 'God' is just energy, which has always existed?

And all the rest - Heaven, Hell, an afterlife, etc. is just myths created by various religions for their own purposes?

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

--Einstein

Dr. Who
03-26-2017, 08:51 PM
Why do you assume a beginning, a first cause, a prime mobile?

Probably linear thinking. I suppose it could be that nothing has begun yet and everything has happened already at the same time, not to mention multi-dimensional possible different scenarios within the same non-linear paradigm. Still, no answers, just more questions.

Chris
03-26-2017, 08:51 PM
The rootless root, the causeless cause.

James Dean, "Rebel...."

Chris
03-26-2017, 09:14 PM
Probably linear thinking. I suppose it could be that nothing has begun yet and everything has happened already at the same time, not to mention multi-dimensional possible different scenarios within the same non-linear paradigm. Still, no answers, just more questions.

Time is linear, like an arrow. But it began with the Big Bang.

Chris
03-26-2017, 09:15 PM
BTW, evolution recently made the news: ON THE ORIGIN OF HIGH-SODIUM SPECIES (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/green-life/origin-high-sodium-species).

resister
03-26-2017, 09:18 PM
Time is linear, like an arrow. But it began with the Big Bang.I believe there is only one moment, the eternal now.

Why? Is the future or past physical? Never, only today. Yesterday and tomorrow exist only in the mind!

Sign at the bar says "free beer tomorrow" Come back tomorrow and ask, barkeep simply points to the sign.

Dr. Who
03-26-2017, 09:26 PM
Time is linear, like an arrow. But it began with the Big Bang.

There are theories that dispute the assumption that time is linear. However while the origin of our universe may well have begun with a singularity, there is also theory to suggest that there are many universes. What then?

Chris
03-27-2017, 08:31 AM
There are theories that dispute the assumption that time is linear. However while the origin of our universe may well have begun with a singularity, there is also theory to suggest that there are many universes. What then?

Scientific theories?

Chris
03-27-2017, 08:33 AM
I believe there is only one moment, the eternal now.

Why? Is the future or past physical? Never, only today. Yesterday and tomorrow exist only in the mind!

Sign at the bar says "free beer tomorrow" Come back tomorrow and ask, barkeep simply points to the sign.


Earlier entropy was brought up. Over time, useful energy dissipates. We grow old and die.

Starman
03-27-2017, 09:21 AM
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." (Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, pg. 88)

"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument." (Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg, pg. 20.)

"Complex molecules that are essential to particular organisms often have such a vast information content as...to make the theory of evolution impossible." (Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pg. 71)

"A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution." (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung, pg. 1142-43, 1186.)

"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow, physicist and cosmologist, God and the Astronomers, page 116

Finally the words of Charles Darwin himself, who acknowledged being a mediocre student in college, which he never finished:

From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

Subdermal
03-27-2017, 09:48 AM
Same with any explanation why and how God did it.


This is the second time I've addressed you attempting to move the goal posts of the offered argument from "it is very logical to assume that God or 'a' god "did it" to the nature of the motive; the nature of the God.

Again: it is not necessary to support an argument asserting the logic of our creation being instigated by a sentience with satisfying your demands regarding how and why.


So what's this problem with singularity and big bang that has to do with time when time was brought into existence by it?


Because you seem to grant that both time and space didn't exist prior to the 'explosion of a singularity', and you use the exact amount of faith in concluding that matter - somehow - did. There is no matter without space. Matter cannot be defined without space; cannot exist without space. Even the acceptance of something like a 'singularity' demands it, as its definition isn't that such a singularity doesn't occupy NO space; just a very small - compressed - one.

Or are you going to explain to the group with your Nobel award-winning physics paper how force attractions of things like protons, neutrons and electrons are possible - without defining the space necessary between them?


Choice is a human thing. The universe doesn't choose.


Non sequitur.

Standing Wolf
03-27-2017, 09:52 AM
I believe there is only one moment, the eternal now.

Why? Is the future or past physical? Never, only today. Yesterday and tomorrow exist only in the mind!

Sign at the bar says "free beer tomorrow" Come back tomorrow and ask, barkeep simply points to the sign.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z-nCePq80Q

resister
03-27-2017, 09:53 AM
Earlier entropy was brought up. Over time, useful energy dissipates. We grow old and die.
This is true, but what is death but a birth.

resister
03-27-2017, 10:00 AM
When we were born, somewhere we were before that event, we experienced a death there just as our death here equals a birth elsewhere. If it is true that we are eternal beings, then it stands to reason, logicaly, that the above must be true also.

Chris
03-27-2017, 10:11 AM
There’s seven people dead
On a South Dakota farm
There’s seven people dead
On a South Dakota farm
Somewhere in the distance
There’s seven new people born

--Bob Dylan, "Ballad Of Hollis Brown"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5djPZ3T7UnI

Chris
03-27-2017, 10:25 AM
"The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you figure out why."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtNZm9KXm8w

resister
03-27-2017, 10:29 AM
Birth and death are two sides of the same coin, IMO both are just another word for transistion. The only thing you cant do is sit still.

Everything is on it's way somewhere.

Starman
03-27-2017, 10:41 AM
Back to the subject, the challenge, which not one of the Darwinists has addressed. No not one.


SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 528 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.
So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 528th power or 10 to the 686th power.
Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^686 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.


Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 600 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.

Chris
03-27-2017, 10:49 AM
Back to the subject, the challenge, which not one of the Darwinists has addressed. No not one.

Been addressed: Probability, even extremely low probability, implies possibility. Your challenge is based on a misunderstanding that probability has to do with plausibility. You're arguing from incredulity.

Furthermore, your "scientific" challenge requires proof. Science doesn't prove things.

Starman
03-28-2017, 07:25 AM
Harry Reid, Moderator

https://attachment.outlook.office.net/owa/JohnJaeger@live.com/service.svc/s/GetFileAttachment?id=AQMkADAwATNiZmYAZC1iOWNiLWE2M GQtMDACLTAwCgBGAAADvu5h9Ult4kiKvew4LPK5kQcA2xM1W1Z %2FaU2%2FKI2zL%2BaubwAAAgEMAAAA2xM1W1Z%2FaU2%2FKI2 zL%2BaubwABSFu3rwAAAAESABAAO1EmK44K30G%2BoAHSTyKAF A%3D%3D&X-OWA-CANARY=nBVXHu1N-kekolFD5zKaOPCXPE3UddQYiFDLmyi3JezkmQsZsvAi4UOvGvs 5gHIgg4J3K00Omfk.&token=c472b9e6-7a5d-4064-8169-75b781eb6371&owa=outlook.live.com&isc=1&isImagePreview=True

Standing Wolf
03-28-2017, 08:07 AM
'Starman', we've all seen these little Creationist/ID "challenges" before, and if you're genuinely interested in a reasoned, detailed, science-based refutation of the one you've cut and pasted here, I'm sure it wouldn't take you very long to find one online. The thing is, you aren't. As far as I know, no one here is a professional scientist, so coming here and holding up this whatever-it-is and saying, in effect, "See? See? You can't answer this, can you?" is childish. You seem to have a cause or two, but you do those causes no service by coming across as someone who can't articulate his own thoughts, but who can only just keep re-posting something he found printed on the back of the church bulletin.

Starman
03-28-2017, 11:38 AM
You seem to have a cause or two, but you do those causes no service by coming across as someone who can't articulate his own thoughts, but who can only just keep re-posting something he found printed on the back of the church bulletin.

These are my thoughts. I am a chemical engineer.
And YOUR impressive credentials are what..... exactly?
I posited a scientific challenge, and of course YOU and your condescending, hateful, intolerant pals choose to invoke the Church and the Bible because you can't BEGIN to respond to my challenge, which I personally wrote and calculated.

How is it that you know-it-all Darwinists sidestep everything and slither back to the Bible, every time?
The subject is science. Try to stay with it... for a change.

Have you any IDEA why hemoglobin is said to "breathe"?
If so, spit it out.

Why does hemoglobin violate LeChatelier's Principle?
I inferred that from my own analysis. You won't find it from any other source except me, Genius.

Starman
03-28-2017, 11:40 AM
Harry Reid, Moderator
17676https://attachment.outlook.office.net/owa/JohnJaeger@live.com/service.svc/s/GetFileAttachment?id=AQMkADAwATNiZmYAZC1iOWNiLWE2M GQtMDACLTAwCgBGAAADvu5h9Ult4kiKvew4LPK5kQcA2xM1W1Z %2FaU2%2FKI2zL%2BaubwAAAgEMAAAA2xM1W1Z%2FaU2%2FKI2 zL%2BaubwABSFu3rwAAAAESABAAO1EmK44K30G%2BoAHSTyKAF A%3D%3D&X-OWA-CANARY=nBVXHu1N-kekolFD5zKaOPCXPE3UddQYiFDLmyi3JezkmQsZsvAi4UOvGvs 5gHIgg4J3K00Omfk.&token=c472b9e6-7a5d-4064-8169-75b781eb6371&owa=outlook.live.com&isc=1&isImagePreview=True

Starman
04-03-2017, 09:53 AM
And "Standing" (sic) Wolf ran away, for he had no science to utter.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

Chris
04-03-2017, 12:28 PM
And "Standing" (sic) Wolf ran away, for he had no science to utter.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)


You left out the grandfather of Creationism, Dr. Henry Morris, one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research, in his 1972 book The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth claims:


There are a number of Biblical references indicating that in some way the stars may actually participate in human battles Numbers 24:17; Judges 5:20; Revelation 6:13; 8:10; etc.).... In any case, the possibility is at least open that the fractures and scars on the moon and Mars, the shattered remnants of an erstwhile planet that became the asteroids, the peculiar rings of Saturn, the meteorite swarms, and other such features that somehow seem alien to a "very good" universe as God must have created it may have been acquired later. Perhaps they reflect some kind of heavenly catastrophe associated either with Satan's primeval rebellion or his continuing battle against Michael and his angels....

Starman
04-03-2017, 02:25 PM
Why are you asking a question if you've already decided that any answer given is unacceptable? Seems a bit silly, don't you think?
"Any answer given is unacceptable" is YOUR phrase, not mine.

1. So far, nobody has "answered" in the sense of providing the requested explanation. Nobody has even attempted to do so, for it is clearly
impossible.

2. Darwinists and atheists have blathered all sorts of inane responses, none of which had anything to do with explaining an utterly insuperable statistic.

Seems more than "a bit silly" to me that you dodge the scientific question and then make such an inane plea. Don't you think?

Chris
04-03-2017, 02:32 PM
...Darwinists and atheists have blathered all sorts of inane responses, none of which had anything to do with explaining an utterly insuperable statistic....

But...


...I posited a scientific challenge, and of course YOU and your condescending, hateful, intolerant pals choose to invoke the Church and the Bible because you can't BEGIN to respond to my challenge....

How many starman are there?

Common Sense
04-03-2017, 03:54 PM
A better question is, why can't creationists create a decent website?

Man can't make amoebas, a kangaroo or an oak tree. It doesn't mean that they didn't occur due to natural occurrences and evolutionary processes.

Complex life and even simple life forms took eons to develop. Man isn't able to grasp these vast amounts of time, so their emergence is seen as miraculous. While it is amazing, it's not miraculous.

Starman
04-04-2017, 02:16 PM
A better question is, why can't creationists create a decent website?

Wow, that's deep science. If creationists can't "create a decent website," then surely Darwin must be right.
As Max Planck said, "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong."


Man isn't able to grasp these vast amounts of time, so their emergence is seen as miraculous. While it is amazing, it's not miraculous.

Prince kisses frog -> Frog turns into princess FAIRY TALE
Rain falls on rocks -> Rocks turn into man *SCIENCE*

Time does not change probabilities, I say again. The next amino acid to be added to a growing sequence, with 39 different amino acids from which to choose, has a likelihood of 1 in 39 whether the selection is made today or in 10,000 years.

Keep expressing those years all you wish, it doesn't change reality one bit.
Moreover, not only did you fail to begin to explain the original scientific challenge I made, neither cannot explain why, if "the fittest" always survive, there are still all of those lesser classes still around. They're supposed to die off because "the fittest" survived.
Horseshoe crabs, unchanged after 500 million years. Coelacanths, still swimming off the coast of Africa and Indonesia, hundreds of millions after they supposedly became extinct. And on and on the examples of cockamamey Darwinism go.

If an hypothesis fails, it must be rejected, period. No alternative is needed before rejecting failures. Because you can't possibly explain the intracacies of your laptop doesn't mean it will not work as designed.

Starman
04-04-2017, 02:23 PM
How many starman are there?

https://smhttp-ssl-5891.nexcesscdn.net/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/6b9ffbf72458f4fd2d3cb995d92e8889/i/a/iamdisappointmentheather_fullpic.png

Ethereal
04-04-2017, 02:27 PM
"Any answer given is unacceptable" is YOUR phrase, not mine.

Any answer that doesn't conform to your preconceptions is what I meant. You claimed in your first post "Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will." This indicates you've already made up your mind and are not open to contrary viewpoints. Debating you would be a complete waste of time.

Chris
04-04-2017, 02:31 PM
Wow, that's deep science. If creationists can't "create a decent website," then surely Darwin must be right.
As Max Planck said, "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong."



Prince kisses frog -> Frog turns into princess FAIRY TALE
Rain falls on rocks -> Rocks turn into man *SCIENCE*

Time does not change probabilities, I say again. The next amino acid to be added to a growing sequence, with 39 different amino acids from which to choose, has a likelihood of 1 in 39 whether the selection is made today or in 10,000 years.

Keep expressing those years all you wish, it doesn't change reality one bit.
Moreover, not only did you fail to begin to explain the original scientific challenge I made, neither cannot explain why, if "the fittest" always survive, there are still all of those lesser classes still around. They're supposed to die off because "the fittest" survived.
Horseshoe crabs, unchanged after 500 million years. Coelacanths, still swimming off the coast of Africa and Indonesia, hundreds of millions after they supposedly became extinct. And on and on the examples of cockamamey Darwinism go.

If an hypothesis fails, it must be rejected, period. No alternative is needed before rejecting failures. Because you can't possibly explain the intracacies of your laptop doesn't mean it will not work as designed.



Again, probability => possibility.


"if "the fittest" always survive, there are still all of those lesser classes still around. They're supposed to die off because "the fittest" survived."

That's not evolution. You're just making up your own silly hypotheses and then calling them what they are, silly.

Hint: Evolution is about genes in a population.


"If an hypothesis fails, it must be rejected, period."

Correct, provided you state a hypothesis of evolution and then falsify it. You don't do that when you post silly strawmen, starman.

Chris
04-04-2017, 02:32 PM
https://smhttp-ssl-5891.nexcesscdn.net/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/6b9ffbf72458f4fd2d3cb995d92e8889/i/a/iamdisappointmentheather_fullpic.png

Another failed post.

Ethereal
04-04-2017, 02:36 PM
Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 600 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
Except no one who understands science or evolutionary theory actually demands "proof", since that is something that only exists within the context of pure math. Science relies on evidence, not proof. And there is lots of evidence which supports evolutionary theory. That does not mean evolutionary theory is infallible, perfect, or set in stone. Indeed, the nature of a theory is that it is tentative and probabilistic. No true scientist will ever claim otherwise. That means the theory can and should be challenged and that alternative theories can and should be explored. Unlike religion, science does not require dogmatic adherence to a particular theory or law. So, yes, there are uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge with regards to evolutionary theory. So what? That can be said about any and every theory. Does that somehow imply that all scientific theories are without merit? Of course not.

Starman
04-04-2017, 04:54 PM
/// Unlike religion, science does not require dogmatic adherence to a particular theory or law. ...

Condescending, hateful atheists and Darwinists do in fact demand dogmatic adherence to their particular theory.
"Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked..." - Richard Dawkins

It is one thing to embrace Darwinism. It is something quite different to dismiss anyone who does not as "stupid, anti-science, Bible-thumper," and all the rest of their hateful, despicable pejoratives.

Moderators should MODERATE and be impartial to posts here. It is impossible for "moderators" to take a stand such as Chris and be objective with respect to comments or violations.

MODERATOR FAIL.

Ethereal
04-04-2017, 05:56 PM
Condescending, hateful atheists and Darwinists do in fact demand dogmatic adherence to their particular theory.
"Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked..." - Richard Dawkins

It is one thing to embrace Darwinism. It is something quite different to dismiss anyone who does not as "stupid, anti-science, Bible-thumper," and all the rest of their hateful, despicable pejoratives.

Moderators should MODERATE and be impartial to posts here. It is impossible for "moderators" to take a stand such as Chris and be objective with respect to comments or violations.

MODERATOR FAIL.
So take it up with Dawkins and his sycophants. I'm a deist who also subscribes to evolutionary theory.

Starman
04-06-2017, 10:49 AM
04-04-2017, 03:56 PM
Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/870-Ethereal)
Senior Member

This message is hidden because Ethereal is on your ignore list (http://thepoliticalforums.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist).View Post (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/80926-Scientific-Challenge-For-Evolutionists?p=1985280#post1985280)

Remove user from ignore list (http://thepoliticalforums.com/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=870)

“If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.” - Alvin Plantinga

Chris
04-06-2017, 10:57 AM
John Derbyshire wrote the following (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/218174/george-gilder-metaphysic-john-derbyshire) back in 2006--back when people used to argue this crapola.


...I’ll also say that I write the following with some reluctance. It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring.

It would be less boring if they’d come up with a new argument once in a while, but they never do. I’ve been engaging with Creationists for a couple of years now, and I have yet to hear an argument younger than I am. (I am not young.) All Creationist arguments have been whacked down a thousand times, but they keep popping up again. Nowadays I just refer argumentative e-mailers to the TalkOrigins website, where any argument you are ever going to hear from a Creationist is whacked down several times over. Don’t think it’ll stop ’em, though....

Starman
04-08-2017, 03:19 PM
I have begun reading Undeniable - How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed, by Douglas Axe

Dr. Axe brings up many brilliant points, one of which is that science is NOT the sole source of truth. Nevertheless, scientists have generally tied themselves to the restriction of materialism, which is to say that matter underlies everything real. We all have preconceptions; we're all susceptible to their influence. Unfortunately atheists and materialists try to pretend otherwise.

"Creationism starts with a commitment to the essential principles of the biblical text of Genesis and aims to reconcile scientific data wiht that understanding. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, starts with a commitment to the essential principles of science and shows how those principles ultimately compel us to attribute life to a purposeful inventor - an intelligent designer. ID authors settle for this vague description not because they want to smuggle God into science bu because the jump from "intelligent designer" to "God" requires something beyond the essential principles of science." - page 48

"For professional scientists to assume that pubic skepticism toward their ideas can only be casued by public ignorance is just plain arrogant." - page 62, 63

"A team of researchers in the culinary sciences recently discovered a revolutionary new soup they call oracle soup, referring to the oracles (mysterious revelations) the ancient Greeks sought fromo their gods. It looks just like allphabet soup - thin broth with little pasta letters and numbers swirling around - but this "soup of the gods" distinguishes itself by what it does, as this experimental recipe shows:

1. Fill a large pot with oracle soup.
2. Cover the pot, and bring the soup to a boil.
3. Remove the pot from the heat, and let the soup cool.
4. Lift the lid to reveal complete instructions for building something new and useful, worthy of a patent - all spelled out in pasta letters.
5. Repeat from step 2 as often as desired." - page 16

Chris
04-08-2017, 03:39 PM
I have begun reading Undeniable - How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed, by Douglas Axe

Dr. Axe brings up many brilliant points, one of which is that science is NOT the sole source of truth. Nevertheless, scientists have generally tied themselves to the restriction of materialism, which is to say that matter underlies everything real. We all have preconceptions; we're all susceptible to their influence. Unfortunately atheists and materialists try to pretend otherwise.

"Creationism starts with a commitment to the essential principles of the biblical text of Genesis and aims to reconcile scientific data wiht that understanding. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, starts with a commitment to the essential principles of science and shows how those principles ultimately compel us to attribute life to a purposeful inventor - an intelligent designer. ID authors settle for this vague description not because they want to smuggle God into science bu because the jump from "intelligent designer" to "God" requires something beyond the essential principles of science." - page 48

"For professional scientists to assume that pubic skepticism toward their ideas can only be casued by public ignorance is just plain arrogant." - page 62, 63

"A team of researchers in the culinary sciences recently discovered a revolutionary new soup they call oracle soup, referring to the oracles (mysterious revelations) the ancient Greeks sought fromo their gods. It looks just like allphabet soup - thin broth with little pasta letters and numbers swirling around - but this "soup of the gods" distinguishes itself by what it does, as this experimental recipe shows:

1. Fill a large pot with oracle soup.
2. Cover the pot, and bring the soup to a boil.
3. Remove the pot from the heat, and let the soup cool.
4. Lift the lid to reveal complete instructions for building something new and useful, worthy of a patent - all spelled out in pasta letters.
5. Repeat from step 2 as often as desired." - page 16




Dr. Axe brings up many brilliant points, one of which is that science is NOT the sole source of truth.

Science doesn't claim to be the sole source of truth.


Nevertheless, scientists have generally tied themselves to the restriction of materialism, which is to say that matter underlies everything real.

You're confusing scientific materialism with metaphysical materialism. Look it up.


We all have preconceptions; we're all susceptible to their influence. Unfortunately atheists and materialists try to pretend otherwise.

Science by definition is incomplete, tentative and probabilistic. No pretense there.


"Creationism starts with a commitment to the essential principles of the biblical text of Genesis and aims to reconcile scientific data wiht that understanding....

IOW...

https://i.snag.gy/uUGHPw.jpg


"For professional scientists to assume that pubic skepticism toward their ideas can only be casued by public ignorance is just plain arrogant."

Science is skepticism.


"A team of researchers in the culinary sciences...

https://i.snag.gy/9kYhc2.jpg

decedent
04-08-2017, 03:42 PM
It takes WWAAAYYYYY more faith to believe that from nothing, sprang everything...

Where did the Creator come from?

Starman
04-08-2017, 03:55 PM
Moderators should MODERATE and be impartial to posts here. It is impossible for "moderators" to take a stand such as Chris and be objective with respect to comments or violations.

MODERATOR FAIL.

@Starman Infraction for violation of rule 9 after warning.

OGIS
04-09-2017, 08:07 AM
It takes WWAAAYYYYY more faith to believe that from nothing, sprang everything, especially considering our minds cant even conceive of nothing.

Whence did God spring from?

OGIS
04-09-2017, 08:09 AM
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/24907137/what-if-i-told-you-what-if-i-told-you-being-atheist-doesnt-makes-you-intelligent.jpg


What if I told you, see above!


What if I told you that ad hom is not a valid argument?

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 12:52 PM
Whence did God spring from?

I think you should research that topic. You may come to hold a different view.

OGIS
04-09-2017, 03:29 PM
I think you should research that topic. You may come to hold a different view.

That is not the way it works, young man. If you ever want to impress your betters, you had better learn that the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive assertion. That's the way rational adults debate.

So please, tell us where God came from.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 04:14 PM
That is not the way it works, young man. If you ever want to impress your betters, you had better learn that the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive assertion. That's the way rational adults debate.

So please, tell us where God came from.

Then it won't work with you, because you are far from rational.

OGIS
04-09-2017, 09:08 PM
Then it won't work with you, because you are far from rational.

And running away from the problem with ad hom doesn't help you, either.

You assert God exists. Please prove it.

I do not have to prove the God does not exist.
That's because it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

For example, prove that you did not enter into a conspiracy to kill someone.

Chris
04-09-2017, 09:37 PM
And running away from the problem with ad hom doesn't help you, either.

You assert God exists. Please prove it.

I do not have to prove the God does not exist.
That's because it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

For example, prove that you did not enter into a conspiracy to kill someone.


That's because it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

Prove that.

Tahuyaman
04-09-2017, 09:45 PM
Prove that.
OGIS is the type of atheist who thinks his lack of belief in God makes him more intelligent and superior to people of faith.

Standing Wolf
04-09-2017, 10:55 PM
Prove that.

If the discussion were about anything but Religion, I strongly suspect you would never have written anything so specious.

We all have our blind spots, Chris. If I may say so, yours is rather glaring.

kilgram
04-10-2017, 05:58 AM
Prove that.
Chris. Prove negatives is not part of the science. And you know that.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

kilgram
04-10-2017, 06:00 AM
OGIS is the type of atheist who thinks his lack of belief in God makes him more intelligent and superior to people of faith.
Well, at least more independent, yes. There is not a chain that intellectually restricts and limits you. As you depend on an authority that says you what is right or not. Not by your own decision or power of choice to think what is right from wrong.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

OGIS
04-10-2017, 06:55 AM
OGIS is the type of atheist who thinks his lack of belief in God makes him more intelligent and superior to people of faith.

Certainly not. It makes me more intelligent and superior to someone who can't even debate according to the rules of logic (that would be you), but there are many people of faith who were/are smarter than, and "superior" (in the sense of smarts) to me.

For example, here's one list of many: http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/25-famous-scientists-on-god.html Also see Georges Lemaître.

Chris
04-10-2017, 07:07 AM
If the discussion were about anything but Religion, I strongly suspect you would never have written anything so specious.

We all have our blind spots, Chris. If I may say so, yours is rather glaring.



Why, OGIS made a positive claim, "That's because it is logically impossible to prove a negative." It's what's specious for the claim God does not exist is really "It is true that...." It's just as easy to prove a negative as a positive anyway. I can prove this post is not #100 in this thread by demonstration it's not.

Chris
04-10-2017, 07:10 AM
Chris. Prove negatives is not part of the science. And you know that.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


It most certainly is a part of science. It's called falsification. All swans are white, or were according to all observations till black swans were discovered in Australia, proving all swans are not white.

Chris
04-10-2017, 07:11 AM
Certainly not. It makes me more intelligent and superior to someone who can't even debate according to the rules of logic (that would be you), but there are many people of faith who were/are smarter than, and "superior" (in the sense of smarts) to me.

For example, here's one list of many: http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/25-famous-scientists-on-god.html Also see Georges Lemaître.


What you claim is not a rule of logic, OGIS. Negatives can be proven.

OGIS
04-10-2017, 07:21 AM
Why, OGIS made a positive claim, "That's because it is logically impossible to prove a negative." It's what's specious for the claim God does not exist is really "It is true that...." It's just as easy to prove a negative as a positive anyway. I can prove this post is not #100 in this thread by demonstration it's not.

Really? OK, please prove that you are not part of a plot to assassinate President Trump.

I'll wait.


(Based on prior run-ins with you on this subject, this is the part where you accuse me of accusing you of committing a crime - yet another example of either your trolling or simply fuzzy thinking. I have not accused you of anything. I have asserted a hypothetical.)

OGIS
04-10-2017, 07:28 AM
What you claim is not a rule of logic, OGIS. Negatives can be proven.


Fine. Please prove to the forum that you are not a pedophile (or a Russian spy, or a bank robber, or an occasional cannibal).

(This, AGAIN, is not an accusation; it is a hypothetical. Please learn the difference.)

OGIS
04-10-2017, 07:32 AM
If one doesn't have faith, nothing matters except you surviving and getting everything you can during your unexplained, meaningless existence.

Incorrect.

Projection of your own limitations and failings onto everyone else is no way to go through life, son.

Chris
04-10-2017, 07:39 AM
Really? OK, please prove that you are not part of a plot to assassinate President Trump.

I'll wait.


(Based on prior run-ins with you on this subject, this is the part where you accuse me of accusing you of committing a crime - yet another example of either your trolling or simply fuzzy thinking. I have not accused you of anything. I have asserted a hypothetical.)


Fine. Please prove to the forum that you are not a pedophile (or a Russian spy, or a bank robber, or an occasional cannibal).

(This, AGAIN, is not an accusation; it is a hypothetical. Please learn the difference.)



Neither proves you cannot prove a negative. That's just folk logic people latch onto when they make a claim they can't prove ans want to shift the burden to others.


Learn what difference, OGIS?



Based on prior run-ins with you on this subject, this is the part where you accuse me of accusing you of committing a crime - yet another example of either your trolling or simply fuzzy thinking. I have not accused you of anything. I have asserted a hypothetical.

I've accused you of nothing. I've merely stated a fact falsifying your belief. Why are you so frantic as to make that up and accuse me of trolling?



After some thought I have to add you are not positing hypotheticals at all. You're just making things up.

kilgram
04-10-2017, 09:01 AM
It most certainly is a part of science. It's called falsification. All swans are white, or were according to all observations till black swans were discovered in Australia, proving all swans are not white.
Great. Falsification is not the same that proving a negative.

Falsification means that a theory can be falsable.

You must prove that God exists and provide evidence for it. As the ones saying all swans are white. They had to show evidence of it. And they did. And this affirmation later became false.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 09:29 AM
Certainly not. It makes me more intelligent and superior to someone who can't even debate according to the rules of logic (that would be you), but there are many people of faith who were/are smarter than, and "superior" (in the sense of smarts) to me.

For example, here's one list of many: http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/25-famous-scientists-on-god.html Also see Georges Lemaître.

an intelligent person would recognize that trying to prove the existence of God is not one based on logic.

OGIS
04-10-2017, 09:35 AM
an intelligent person would recognize that trying to prove the existence of God is not one based on logic.

Repeating the same ad home over and over again does not make it true. It simply makes you sound stupider than a mynah bird.

Chris
04-10-2017, 09:35 AM
Great. Falsification is not the same that proving a negative.

Falsification means that a theory can be falsable.

You must prove that God exists and provide evidence for it. As the ones saying all swans are white. They had to show evidence of it. And they did. And this affirmation later became false.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


True, the idea or criteria of falsification is that a theory or hypothesis be falsifiable to be scientific. In practice however that is what scientists do, they falsify hypotheses. I gave example with swans, a famous one in which Hume revealed the problem with induction.


You must prove that God exists and provide evidence for it.

The converse is equally true, those who claim God does not exist must prove it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To me the absurdity of all these arguments is people bandy about the word God, asking for proof, without once telling us what they mean by it. You argue from unknowns.

Tahuyaman
04-10-2017, 09:37 AM
Repeating the same ad home over and over again does not make it true. It simply makes you sound stupider than a mynah bird.


Then stop.....

Chris
04-10-2017, 09:37 AM
Repeating the same ad home over and over again does not make it true. It simply makes you sound stupider than a mynah bird.

Ditto to you, OGIS.

DGUtley
04-10-2017, 11:34 AM
Just because science can't explain everything yet doesn't automatically mean "magic invisible people" did it. edit: Moreover - If proof of God exists that means God is real. All I need is proof.

Just because science can't explain everything doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Read about Lourdes. Bernadette Subrious told her mother that a 'lady' spoke to her in a cave in a field in Lourdes France. A simple 14-year-old peasant girl of no significant educational experience, Soubirous claimed she saw uo petito damizelo, "a small maiden,"[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes#cite_note-7)in white, with a golden rosary and blue belt fastened around her waist, and two golden roses at her feet. In subsequent visitations she heard the lady speak to her, saying Que soy era Immaculada Concepciou (I am the Immaculate Conception), and asking that a chapel be built there. At first ridiculed, questioned, and belittled by Church officials and other contemporaries, Soubirous insisted on her vision. Eventually the Church believed her and she was canonized by Pope Pius XI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_XI) in 1933. The Lady told the little girl to dig in the ground. To this day, a spring flows from where the little girl dug.


Read about Fatima. The sun danced in the sky. It was witnessed by tens of thousands who showed up that day, in the anti-religious government papers. This Fatima “miracle” has been described in many very different ways. Some claimed that the sun spun pinwheel-like with colored streamers, while others maintained that it danced. One reported, “I saw clearly and distinctly a globe of light advancing from east to west, gliding slowly and majestically through the air.” To some, the sun seemed to be falling toward the spectators. Still others, before the “dance of the sun” occurred, saw white petals shower down and disintegrate before reaching the earth (Larue 1990, 195—196; Arvey 1990, 70—71; Rogo 1982, 227, 230—232).We know scientifically what happens when the sun moves towards the earth and dances in the sky -- strange things happen to the oceans. Yet, nothing.

kilgram
04-10-2017, 12:37 PM
True, the idea or criteria of falsification is that a theory or hypothesis be falsifiable to be scientific. In practice however that is what scientists do, they falsify hypotheses. I gave example with swans, a famous one in which Hume revealed the problem with induction.



The converse is equally true, those who claim God does not exist must prove it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To me the absurdity of all these arguments is people bandy about the word God, asking for proof, without once telling us what they mean by it. You argue from unknowns.
You must prove your hypothesis of God. If you're not able to prove it is absurd to try to deny it.

So prove that I am not a bot.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Doublejack
04-10-2017, 01:11 PM
Just because science can't explain everything doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.



Agreed.


Those two stories hold as much testable evidence as santa claus or the tooth fairy.

None.

Chris
04-10-2017, 01:17 PM
You must prove your hypothesis of God. If you're not able to prove it is absurd to try to deny it.

So prove that I am not a bot.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


I hold no such hypothesis either way as I am an agnostic atheist. Which is consistent with my arguments above, that no one knows what it is they're trying to prove or disprove when it comes to God.

You could be a bot. Point stands, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, it would be arguing from unknowns.

DGUtley
04-10-2017, 02:08 PM
Agreed. Those two stories hold as much testable evidence as santa claus or the tooth fairy. None.

On the contrary.

1. In Fatima, we know that the sun did what the atheistic papers wrote that it did -- and the tides didn't flood the world, which we know that the would scientifically.
2. In Lourdes, we know that there was barren ground, that the little girl dug there because she stated the Lady told her to and that a spring flows to this date. You can debate whether the water has any healing properties, but the facts are just as I stated.

Starman
04-10-2017, 02:27 PM
SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 574 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids. Nineteen of these twenty have racemates, which is to say both D and L forms. So there are a total of 39 different possibilities for each of 574 bases in the sequence.

Therefore the number of possible sequences is 39 to the 574th power or 10 to the 914th power.


Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^914 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.


Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 900 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.

It's abundantly obvious you cannot ever begin to take the first step in demonstrating YOUR pretense of "understanding abiogenesis."
But try anyway.

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)

I corrected the original post which mistakenly stated 528 amino acid residues. The number is actually 574. Not one of the so-called Darwinian "experts in science" caught that.

Not one Darwinist has made the most superficial attempt at this challenge, the subject of the thread.
All they can do is invoke the Bible and throw ad hominem attacks. How petty and superficial.

Chris
04-10-2017, 02:48 PM
I corrected the original post which mistakenly stated 528 amino acid residues. The number is actually 574. Not one of the so-called Darwinian "experts in science" caught that.

Not one Darwinist has made the most superficial attempt at this challenge, the subject of the thread.
All they can do is invoke the Bible and throw ad hominem attacks. How petty and superficial.

^^Ad hom.



Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^914 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.

Still mistaking improbable as impossible.

And what do you even mean by "correct"? Evolutionary theory doesn't predict correctness but fitness of a gene pool to the environment.


Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.

Nor have you met your challenge.

kilgram
04-10-2017, 03:19 PM
I hold no such hypothesis either way as I am an agnostic atheist. Which is consistent with my arguments above, that no one knows what it is they're trying to prove or disprove when it comes to God.

You could be a bot. Point stands, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, it would be arguing from unknowns.
Are you agnostic of fairies or vampires?

Do you believe they may exist?

My position as I have said always is simple. You must prove your affirmation.

No, prove that I am not a bot. You're the one that says that have to be proven the negative and when I say you to prove it, you step away and come with the argument of uncertainties.

My point is that if there is no evidence it is irrelevant. It does not exist as a matter of effect. That is the story.

Like fairies that you consider then a myth. You are atheist of fairies. You don't have an agnostic point of view of them.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Standing Wolf
04-10-2017, 03:28 PM
True faith should not require that God's "signature" be found in the corner of the painting, so to speak, in order for that faith to be maintained.

It's just my opinion, of course, but I have to question how strong or genuine a Christian's belief in a personal God truly is if they feel it necessary to try to use (or misuse) Science in order to bolster that belief and "prove" their God's existence.

Mister D
04-10-2017, 03:47 PM
True faith should not require that God's "signature" be found in the corner of the painting, so to speak, in order for that faith to be maintained.

It's just my opinion, of course, but I have to question how strong or genuine a Christian's belief in a personal God truly is if they feel it necessary to try to use (or misuse) Science in order to bolster that belief and "prove" their God's existence.
I have faith in Jesus Christ. I don't have faith in God. I believe in "God" because it seems most likely.

That Creationists (big C) resort to science is unsurprising given 1) how science has been transformed from a useful method into a worldview and 2) how deeply embedded that worldview is in modern society.

Chris
04-10-2017, 04:32 PM
Are you agnostic of fairies or vampires?

Do you believe they may exist?

My position as I have said always is simple. You must prove your affirmation.

No, prove that I am not a bot. You're the one that says that have to be proven the negative and when I say you to prove it, you step away and come with the argument of uncertainties.

My point is that if there is no evidence it is irrelevant. It does not exist as a matter of effect. That is the story.

Like fairies that you consider then a myth. You are atheist of fairies. You don't have an agnostic point of view of them.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


Perhaps you pay attention to the wrong meters.

Starman
04-10-2017, 06:57 PM
True faith should not require that God's "signature" be found in the corner of the painting, so to speak, in order for that faith to be maintained.
It doesn't. You should learn what true faith really is. Clearly you have no idea.


It's just my opinion, of course, but I have to question how strong or genuine a Christian's belief in a personal God truly is if they feel it necessary to try to use (or misuse) Science in order to bolster that belief and "prove" their God's existence.

1. How strong or genuine is your atheist belief when you must constantly attack and spew venom, and call others "ignorant" and "unscientific" when they disagree with you? How strong and genuine is YOUR belief? It is not.
2. As to "proving" anything, you don't seem to understand that science is not the only source of truth. You don't seem to realize that.
3. Nor do you seem to realize that science does NOT "prove." That is the domain of mathematics, and it is an area where atheists play ridiculous games constantly.

Now back to the subject of the thread which you have studiously avoided, along with all of your atheist friends. You can't begin to answer the challenge so you cite the Bible and attack Christians. Leave religion out of it and answer the question in any way you possibly can.
I'll pay you to do so.

Chris
04-10-2017, 07:14 PM
...

Now back to the subject of the thread which you have studiously avoided, along with all of your atheist friends. You can't begin to answer the challenge so you cite the Bible and attack Christians. Leave religion out of it and answer the question in any way you possibly can.
I'll pay you to do so.


https://i.snag.gy/WqJfVY.jpg

kilgram
04-11-2017, 11:59 AM
Perhaps you pay attention to the wrong meters.
Perhaps I don't.

You did not answer the questin of your agnosticism towards fairies.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Chris
04-11-2017, 12:13 PM
Perhaps I don't.

You did not answer the questin of your agnosticism towards fairies.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


I neither believe nor disbelieve. I doubt you can tell me what a fairy is any more than you can God.

I, likely like you, am a man of reason, empirically so. But the meter for detecting God is faith. As a man of reason I don't get that. But I don't ridicule those who do.

Standing Wolf
04-11-2017, 12:39 PM
I neither believe nor disbelieve. I doubt you can tell me what a fairy is any more than you can God.

I, likely like you, am a man of reason, empirically so. But the meter for detecting God is faith. As a man of reason I don't get that. But I don't ridicule those who do.

While I may fall short of it occasionally, my aim is always to respect the honestly expressed faith of others. From the Roman Catholic priests I have known, to the Dutch Reformed members who came to the little town in northern California where I was living to help rebuild houses damaged by an earthquake, to the individuals from many different denominations whom I've interacted with over the years - their lives, actions and words were a living testament to the sincerity and seriousness of their beliefs. I would guess that more people have been brought to the Faith by that kind of "witness" over the centuries than all the fire-and-brimstone preaching ever done.

What 'Starman' has done in this thread bears - in my opinion - no relation to faith; quite the contrary. Faith is not an intellectual game, but an ongoing transformative experience. True faith doesn't engender arrogance and hostility, but love and tolerance. His attitude, as expressed in this thread, does God no service. His is a very bad witness.

Chris
04-11-2017, 12:53 PM
While I may fall short of it occasionally, my aim is always to respect the honestly expressed faith of others. From the Roman Catholic priests I have known, to the Dutch Reformed members who came to the little town in northern California where I was living to help rebuild houses damaged by an earthquake, to the individuals from many different denominations whom I've interacted with over the years - their lives, actions and words were a living testament to the sincerity and seriousness of their beliefs. I would guess that more people have been brought to the Faith by that kind of "witness" over the centuries than all the fire-and-brimstone preaching ever done.

What 'Starman' has done in this thread bears - in my opinion - no relation to faith; quite the contrary. Faith is not an intellectual game, but an ongoing transformative experience. True faith doesn't engender arrogance and hostility, but love and tolerance. His attitude, as expressed in this thread, does God no service. His is a very bad witness.

Starman doesn't even discuss.

kilgram
04-11-2017, 01:37 PM
I neither believe nor disbelieve. I doubt you can tell me what a fairy is any more than you can God.

I, likely like you, am a man of reason, empirically so. But the meter for detecting God is faith. As a man of reason I don't get that. But I don't ridicule those who do.
A fairy? Well, I can describe it as it has been portrayed. A being with form of human with wings like buterflies (more or less) and as similar size as them. Also, they possess special abilities that could be called magic. And as a great feature they hide from normal humans and they cannot be viewed.

That would be a fairy, more or less. Or at least one of the portrayals of them.

Fairies, angels, vampires, demons, gods... are very good for some things. For being entertained in fantasy worlds, in the books or cinema.

So, the meter for detecting fairies, angels, vampires, elves... is faith. What people would think about anyone that is affirming that a fairy is living in his garden? He says that he believes that. He is sure that the fairy is in his garden and living there. And from time to time speaks to him.

Be sincere, what would be your first thought?

Chris
04-11-2017, 01:45 PM
A fairy? Well, I can describe it as it has been portrayed. A being with form of human with wings like buterflies (more or less) and as similar size as them. Also, they possess special abilities that could be called magic. And as a great feature they hide from normal humans and they cannot be viewed.

That would be a fairy, more or less. Or at least one of the portrayals of them.

Fairies, angels, vampires, demons, gods... are very good for some things. For being entertained in fantasy worlds, in the books or cinema.

So, the meter for detecting fairies, angels, vampires, elves... is faith. How many people here would think that is crazy anyone that is affirming that a fairy is living in his garden? He says that he believes that. He is sure that the fairy is in his garden and living there. And from time to time speaks to him.

Be sincere, what would be your first thought?


You just created fairies in your mind.

Michael Munger Unicorn Governance (https://fee.org/articles/unicorn-governance/):


Our problem is that we have to fight unicorns.

Unicorns, of course, are fabulous horse-like creatures with a large spiraling horn on their forehead. They eat rainbows, but can go without eating for years if necessary. They can carry enormous amounts of cargo without tiring. And their flatulence smells like pure, fresh strawberries, which makes riding behind them in a wagon a pleasure.

For all these reasons, unicorns are essentially the ideal pack animal, the key to improving human society and sharing prosperity.

Now, you want to object that there is a flaw in the above argument, because unicorns do not actually exist. This would clearly be a fatal flaw for the claim that unicorns are useful, if it were true. Is it?

Of course not. The existence of unicorns is easily proven. Close your eyes. Now envision a unicorn. The one I see is white, with an orange-colored horn. The unicorn is surrounded by rainbows. Your vision may look slightly different, but there is no question that when I say "unicorn," the picture in your mind corresponds fairly closely to the picture in my mind. So, unicorns do exist and we have a shared conception of what they are.....

Note that here unicorns are a metaphor for the perfect idea of government we imagine.



So, the meter for detecting fairies, angels, vampires, elves... is faith. How many people here would think that is crazy anyone that is affirming that a fairy is living in his garden? He says that he believes that. He is sure that the fairy is in his garden and living there. And from time to time speaks to him.

Be sincere, what would be your first thought?

Read sincerely. I said that of God alone--and Mister D would clarify he has faith in Jesus, belief in God. I didn't say that of anything else. Try again.

Chris
04-11-2017, 01:47 PM
Starman doesn't even discuss.

And I can prove that. And it's a negative.

Starman
04-11-2017, 06:55 PM
While I may fall short of it occasionally, my aim is always to respect the honestly expressed faith of others.

The title is "Scientific Challenge For Evolutionists".
It is NOT about faith. It is in the thread for Science and Technology, NOT religion.
You need to take your sanctimonious preaching elsewhere, Mister Oh So Holy.

True faith doesn't engender arrogance and hostility, but love and tolerance. His attitude, as expressed in this thread, does God no service. His is a very bad witness.

I do not suffer fools gladly. For decades, people like you have attacked and maligned anyone who deigns to disagree with Darwinism, calling us "ignorant" and "stupid" and much worse. But since you started proslytizing, heed the words of Jesus Christ:
"Let him who hath no sword sell his garment and buy one."
Swords are not used for plowing.

Moreover, Jesus rebuked the moneychangers in the temple and whipped them.
I repeat, I do not suffer fools gladly.
I did not begin this thread to witness or preach. YOU and Chris and others like you brought on your own proselytizing because you know so very little science and can't begin to rise to the challenge I made.

Mister D
04-11-2017, 07:05 PM
What I'd really like to know is what people like kilgram do believe about human existence and, more importantly, why they believe it.

Chris
04-11-2017, 07:05 PM
The title is "Scientific Challenge For Evolutionists".
It is NOT about faith. It is in the thread for Science and Technology, NOT religion.
You need to take your sanctimonious preaching elsewhere, Mister Oh So Holy.


I do not suffer fools gladly. For decades, people like you have attacked and maligned anyone who deigns to disagree with Darwinism, calling us "ignorant" and "stupid" and much worse. But since you started proslytizing, heed the words of Jesus Christ:
"Let him who hath no sword sell his garment and buy one."
Swords are not used for plowing.

Moreover, Jesus rebuked the moneychangers in the temple and whipped them.
I repeat, I do not suffer fools gladly.
I did not begin this thread to witness or preach. YOU and Chris and others like you brought on your own proselytizing because you know so very little science and can't begin to rise to the challenge I made.



Right, but the challenge is not scientific. It is religious. Intelligent Design is religious. It's just the old teleological argument for God. For that matter it's not even good religion being as the designer analogy makes God in man's image, a watchmaker for instance.

Starman
04-16-2017, 05:03 PM
A whip for a horse, a bridle for a donkey,
and a rod for the fool's back. - Proverbs 26:3

There is profound scientific evidence for intelligent design with absolutely no reference whatsoever to
the Bible. Darwinists should try to learn this fact and stop reciting nonsense, but they never will.
I made the opening post a scientific challenge and all the haters can do is ignore it in toto.

Starman
04-21-2017, 07:01 PM
Is it even POSSIBLE for atheists to discuss science without haranguing on "religion"? I don't believe anyone reading this has ever seen
atheists do so. They are utterly obsessed with the pretense that any challenge to Darwinism is a religious, rather than a scientific and rational one.

Darwinism pretends that humans "evolved" primarily by growing bigger brains, the better to think and improve our lot.
The fallacy of their arguments are found in comparing human brain size with the size of sperm whale brains, about five times as large.
Anyone can call their dog, and train it. Has anyone called a sperm whale, or communicated with one? No. And the claim of "monitoring its systems" is utterly lame since the storage capacity of neurons is so extraordinarily compact, and small commands control large muscle groups and systems.

Then there are the phenomenal abilities of insects, such as monarch butterflies as well as arachnids, whose talents amaze us. How large is the brain of a monarch butterfly which navigates 3,000 miles?

"Living fossils" abound in the form of so many life forms extant 60 million to 400 million years ago. Take the coelacanth, for example, or the horseshoe crab or the trilobite or the dragonfly or shrimps, unchanged for millennia.

There are thousands of scientists well versed in many disciplines, from biology, to biochemistry, to information theory, to mathematics, who have written volumes on the impossibility of Darwinian evolution to take minerals and water and ultimately transform them into both the plant and animal kingdom.
It is absurd to pretend that all of these highly intelligent people are all bamboozled into arguing from the Holy Bible and trying to weave science and facts into a Christian narrative, primarily because many of Darwin's doubters are atheist or agnostic.

In the first century A.D., Plutarch commented on the impossibility of wetting clay and expecting chance to mold it into bricks, or wool and leather fabricating themselves into a cloak and shoes. He was wiser than most of today's evolutionary biologists, and far less hateful.

Standing Wolf
04-21-2017, 07:07 PM
Is it even POSSIBLE for atheists to discuss science without haranguing on "religion"?

Is it possible for a Creationist to hold on to his faith in God without, so to speak, constantly dusting the Universe for His fingerprints?

Chris
04-21-2017, 07:35 PM
Is it even POSSIBLE for atheists to discuss science without haranguing on "religion"? I don't believe anyone reading this has ever seen
atheists do so. They are utterly obsessed with the pretense that any challenge to Darwinism is a religious, rather than a scientific and rational one.

Darwinism pretends that humans "evolved" primarily by growing bigger brains, the better to think and improve our lot.
The fallacy of their arguments are found in comparing human brain size with the size of sperm whale brains, about five times as large.
Anyone can call their dog, and train it. Has anyone called a sperm whale, or communicated with one? No. And the claim of "monitoring its systems" is utterly lame since the storage capacity of neurons is so extraordinarily compact, and small commands control large muscle groups and systems.

Then there are the phenomenal abilities of insects, such as monarch butterflies as well as arachnids, whose talents amaze us. How large is the brain of a monarch butterfly which navigates 3,000 miles?

"Living fossils" abound in the form of so many life forms extant 60 million to 400 million years ago. Take the coelacanth, for example, or the horseshoe crab or the trilobite or the dragonfly or shrimps, unchanged for millennia.

There are thousands of scientists well versed in many disciplines, from biology, to biochemistry, to information theory, to mathematics, who have written volumes on the impossibility of Darwinian evolution to take minerals and water and ultimately transform them into both the plant and animal kingdom.
It is absurd to pretend that all of these highly intelligent people are all bamboozled into arguing from the Holy Bible and trying to weave science and facts into a Christian narrative, primarily because many of Darwin's doubters are atheist or agnostic.

In the first century A.D., Plutarch commented on the impossibility of wetting clay and expecting chance to mold it into bricks, or wool and leather fabricating themselves into a cloak and shoes. He was wiser than most of today's evolutionary biologists, and far less hateful.

Sure. You start. Say something scientific. Make a scientific challenge. Whining about athests, fail. Appealing to authority, fail. Spewing nonsense, fail.

Starman
04-21-2017, 07:47 PM
Is it possible for a Creationist to hold on to his faith in God without, so to speak, constantly dusting the Universe for His fingerprints?
Just as I said. Q.E.D.

The opening post makes ZERO mention of God. ZERO. YOU bring Him up.

If you had a clue of the science you pretend, you would try to answer some of my challenges, such as the opening post.
But you do not because you cannot.

IF you knew half of the science you and others pretend, surely ONE of you would answer what is the range of pKa values, and explain why.
But not one of you has attempted to do so.

IF you had a clue as to how human hemoglobin defies LeChatelier's Principle, you would discuss it, but you cannot.

From fundamental atomic structure to the profound complexity that is our sun, providing us constant energy over millennia, marvels abound. About these, you have little understanding much less appreciation and can only regurgitate the trivial phrase you have heard your handlers repeat, "The Argument From Incredulity". In fact you are making the Argument From Pretension.


"Atomic spectroscopy amazes me still." - Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot

I critiqued the science in several of his books, as well as the science in several of Richard Dawkins' books. They had no answers for their many mistakes and leftist misrepresentations, and in the case of Dawkins, for his vile hatred and pettiness. One of his fellow professors at Oxford said "Dawkins God Delusion book makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

Chris
04-21-2017, 09:54 PM
Sure. You start. Say something scientific. Make a scientific challenge. Whining about athests, fail. Appealing to authority, fail. Spewing nonsense, fail.

Waiting....

donttread
04-21-2017, 10:23 PM
SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 528 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.
So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 528th power or 10 to the 686th power.


Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^686 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.


Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 600 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.


It's abundantly obvious you cannot ever begin to take the first step in demonstrating YOUR pretense of "understanding abiogenesis."
But try anyway.

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)

So it must have been a magic dude in a beard?

Chris
04-21-2017, 11:13 PM
So it must have been a magic dude in a beard?

No no no starman insists "The opening post makes ZERO mention of God. ZERO. YOU bring Him up."

AeonPax
04-21-2017, 11:43 PM
`
`
1. I believe a supreme divinity exists and most likely was involved in creation.

2. Interesting development; Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html)',

Common Sense
04-22-2017, 12:12 AM
Pseudoscience gibberish is as cool as Jesus riding a dinosaur.

Hal Jordan
04-22-2017, 12:30 AM
Is it even POSSIBLE for atheists to discuss science without haranguing on "religion"? I don't believe anyone reading this has ever seen atheists do so.

As a Christian, I will say that it most certainly is possible and that your statement here is clearly false.

Starman
04-22-2017, 03:35 PM
Find for me any reference to religion in this, my opening post, anyone.
Take your time. It's been here for a month already and nobody has attempted to explain polypeptide synthesis of a single protein, much less hundreds of them.

Other challenges I have made include asking anyone to cite the range of pKa values, and explain why it is that. Nothing.
If brain size is as critical as Darwinists have always pretended, why can we communicate nicely with African gray parrots but not sperm whales, with the largest brains on earth? Nothing. You arrogant Darwinists are big on bluster, but that's it. That is particularly true of the moderator.


SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 528 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.
So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 528th power or 10 to the 686th power.


Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^686 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.


Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 600 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.


It's abundantly obvious you cannot ever begin to take the first step in demonstrating YOUR pretense of "understanding abiogenesis."
But try anyway.

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)

Chris
04-22-2017, 03:59 PM
Argues with self^^. :Doh!:

Standing Wolf
04-22-2017, 07:17 PM
Find for me any reference to religion in this, my opening post, anyone.
Take your time. It's been here for a month already and nobody has attempted to explain polypeptide synthesis of a single protein, much less hundreds of them.

Other challenges I have made include asking anyone to cite the range of pKa values, and explain why it is that. Nothing.
If brain size is as critical as Darwinists have always pretended, why can we communicate nicely with African gray parrots but not sperm whales, with the largest brains on earth? Nothing. You arrogant Darwinists are big on bluster, but that's it. That is particularly true of the moderator.

This really shouldn't need to be said, but simply because some facet of Nature is complex and intricate, perhaps even beyond Man's current ability to fully understand or explain, it does not logically follow that some supernatural entity is responsible for designing it. When you reduce your belief in God to that sort of equation, it resembles nothing more than early Man imagining deities that caused volcanoes to erupt or lightning bolts to come from the sky when they were angry.

Since Darwin's time, many tens or even hundreds of millions of Christians and other believers have experienced no trouble whatsoever reconciling their faith in God with their understanding of Science. If the scientific insights and the requirements of faith are as seriously at odds as you seem intent on making them appear, how is that possible?

I don't mean to be insulting, but it seems to me that you and Richard Dawkins represent two sides of the same coin, as it were: you begin with the premise that only one thing can be true, and refuse to entertain the possibility that maybe you only believe that because of your own failure to fully understand what either Faith or Science is really saying.

Starman
04-22-2017, 08:36 PM
This really shouldn't need to be said, but simply because some facet of Nature is complex and intricate, perhaps even beyond Man's current ability to fully understand or explain, it does not logically follow that some supernatural entity is responsible for designing it.

You missed the point entirely, and intentionally. I didn't invoke "some supernatural entity." That is your phrase. I simply asked anyone who wishes to propose a scientific mechanism for one polypeptide, just one of the thousands. The statistics are insuperable. Derive from that whatever you wish. Darwinism does NOT cut it.


Since Darwin's time, many tens or even hundreds of millions of Christians and other believers have experienced no trouble whatsoever reconciling their faith in God with their understanding of Science. If the scientific insights and the requirements of faith are as seriously at odds as you seem intent on making them appear, how is that possible?

Very simply, peer pressure. The current is strong. Anyone who attempts to swim against it is ridiculed, mocked, laughed at, called names, and derided as ignorant. Who needs it, particularly when few people have sufficient background to challenge the "scientists."


I don't mean to be insulting, but it seems to me that you and Richard Dawkins represent two sides of the same coin, as it were: you begin with the premise that only one thing can be true, and refuse to entertain the possibility that maybe you only believe that because of your own failure to fully understand what either Faith or Science is really saying.

I didn't begin with any "premise." I made a challenge. Nobody has attempted to rise to that challenge, including you.
Nor am I remotely like Richard Dawkins. He is incredibly hateful, condescending, arrogant, socialist, wealthy, and has bad teeth.
YOU claim I don't understand what "Science (sic)" is really saying and "don't mean to be insulting."
Please, you did mean that to be insulting and you know less about science than I do, by a considerable margin.

Random mutation, followed by "selection," is not remotely as complex as Darwinists pretend. It is sadly wanting, and NOT because of my "Faith (sic)." That is quite a separate matter. Stay on the subject of science, if you possibly can.

Chris
04-22-2017, 08:41 PM
You missed the point entirely, and intentionally. I didn't invoke "some supernatural entity." That is your phrase. I simply asked anyone who wishes to propose a scientific mechanism for one polypeptide, just one of the thousands. The statistics are insuperable. Derive from that whatever you wish. Darwinism does NOT cut it.



Very simply, peer pressure. The current is strong. Anyone who attempts to swim against it is ridiculed, mocked, laughed at, called names, and derided as ignorant. Who needs it, particularly when few people have sufficient background to challenge the "scientists."



I didn't begin with any "premise." I made a challenge. Nobody has attempted to rise to that challenge, including you.
Nor am I remotely like Richard Dawkins. He is incredibly hateful, condescending, arrogant, socialist, wealthy, and has bad teeth.
YOU claim I don't understand what "Science (sic)" is really saying and "don't mean to be insulting."
Please, you did mean that to be insulting and you know less about science than I do, by a considerable margin.

Random mutation, followed by "selection," is not remotely as complex as Darwinists pretend. It is sadly wanting, and NOT because of my "Faith (sic)." That is quite a separate matter. Stay on the subject of science, if you possibly can.


You missed Wolf's point, probably deliberately so. That point was that even if science can't explain, it proves nothing. Your challenge fails to even rise to scientific falsification, because that would require a scientific explanation from you.

Ethereal
04-22-2017, 08:51 PM
04-04-2017, 03:56 PM
Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/870-Ethereal)
Senior Member

This message is hidden because Ethereal is on your ignore list (http://thepoliticalforums.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

View Post (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/80926-Scientific-Challenge-For-Evolutionists?p=1985280#post1985280)
Remove user from ignore list (http://thepoliticalforums.com/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=870)

“If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.” - Alvin Plantinga




So you challenge people to a debate and then run away when they acquiesce? How juvenile.

Ethereal
04-22-2017, 08:53 PM
Well, at least more independent, yes. There is not a chain that intellectually restricts and limits you. As you depend on an authority that says you what is right or not. Not by your own decision or power of choice to think what is right from wrong.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Without god, how does "right" and "wrong" have any meaning or validity outside our own individual perspective?

Standing Wolf
04-22-2017, 11:20 PM
Without god, how does "right" and "wrong" have any meaning or validity outside our own individual perspective?

Not attempting to put words in your mouth - just wondering. Is that another way of saying that morality is only a valid concept in the context of compliance with a religious teaching? In other words, atheists have no basis for what they call their "morality"? That actually sounds like the kind of argument someone like 'Starman' would be making.

kilgram
04-23-2017, 03:40 AM
Without god, how does "right" and "wrong" have any meaning or validity outside our own individual perspective?
Do you need an authority to know what is right from wrong?


Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

donttread
04-23-2017, 06:31 AM
No no no starman insists "The opening post makes ZERO mention of God. ZERO. YOU bring Him up."

OK, but then what is "Starman's" explanation for us being here ?

Chris
04-23-2017, 10:10 AM
OK, but then what is "Starman's" explanation for us being here ?

No idea, he takes no stance on anything, just critizies other stances. It's the safe thing to do.

Chris
04-23-2017, 10:11 AM
Do you need an authority to know what is right from wrong?


Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk


Right reason, which is not individual but shared and social.

Starman
04-23-2017, 10:22 AM
OK, but then what is "Starman's" explanation for us being here ?

Try to stay on topic, viz., "Scientific Challenge For Evolutionists".

The subject is NOT me explaining how we got here. It is YOU elaborating on the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis, which clearly none of you has a clue about. I'm sure you never heard of the word "polypeptide" before I brought it up. But you Darwinists are all oh so *scientific*.


Kilgram: Do you need an authority to know what is right from wrong?

When you are a child, your parents and your teachers provide that authority, and to a lesser extent, your friends do.
Where do adults derive their moral values? Atheists have the temerity to pretend that they are their own arbiters of all things good and evil, from the *goodness* of their hearts. The Judeo-Christian ethic draws its morality from the Holy Bible, but that is not the subject. You and the *moderator* keep trying to derail the thread with gibberish, while proclaiming your *scientific acumen*. When has anyone here other than me shown a hint of it? Never.

Standing Wolf
04-23-2017, 10:49 AM
The subject is NOT me explaining how we got here. It is YOU elaborating on the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis, which clearly none of you has a clue about. I'm sure you never heard of the word "polypeptide" before I brought it up. But you Darwinists are all oh so *scientific*.

You're correct - I, for one, have no idea what a "polypeptide" even is. I also don't know how to diagnose and repair a problem with my car engine's computer. When the latter happens, I don't assume that there are evil spirits in the clutch housing and call a priest.

Chris
04-23-2017, 10:52 AM
You're correct - I, for one, have no idea what a "polypeptide" even is. I also don't know how to diagnose and repair a problem with my car engine's computer. When the latter happens, I don't assume that there are evil spirits in the clutch housing and call a priest.

You don't? :thinking:

Chris
04-23-2017, 10:54 AM
No idea, he takes no stance on anything, just critizies other stances. It's the safe thing to do.


Try to stay on topic, viz., "Scientific Challenge For Evolutionists".

The subject is NOT me explaining how we got here. It is YOU elaborating on the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis, which clearly none of you has a clue about. I'm sure you never heard of the word "polypeptide" before I brought it up. But you Darwinists are all oh so *scientific*.



[/COLOR]When you are a child, your parents and your teachers provide that authority, and to a lesser extent, your friends do.
Where do adults derive their moral values? Atheists have the temerity to pretend that they are their own arbiters of all things good and evil, from the *goodness* of their hearts. The Judeo-Christian ethic draws its morality from the Holy Bible, but that is not the subject. You and the *moderator* keep trying to derail the thread with gibberish, while proclaiming your *scientific acumen*. When has anyone here other than me shown a hint of it? Never.



Like I said.

rcfieldz
04-23-2017, 11:03 AM
To me there are only a few ways why man(and woman) exists. We leap frogged from one planet to another either by leaving DNA or as farfetched as a crash landing of crew of settlers. However, if the environment here or elsewhere consisted of a slightly different combination of molecules life and people could look more like a science fiction movie where we all resemble a lizard or slug-like appearence.

Ethereal
04-23-2017, 11:49 AM
Not attempting to put words in your mouth - just wondering. Is that another way of saying that morality is only a valid concept in the context of compliance with a religious teaching? In other words, atheists have no basis for what they call their "morality"? That actually sounds like the kind of argument someone like 'Starman' would be making.

It's a question, not an argument.

Ethereal
04-23-2017, 11:51 AM
Do you need an authority to know what is right from wrong?

How do we know what is right and wrong without some kind of objective standard?

kilgram
04-23-2017, 03:36 PM
How do we know what is right and wrong without some kind of objective standard?
God is not objective. It is like the Lord of the Rings setting the moral of the world. Absurd.

Religion does not prevent or educate what is good or evil. There is a saying that religion is needed for good people do evil. If you're not able to think by yourself and see what may harm or not, you have a problem.


Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

Ethereal
04-23-2017, 03:38 PM
God is not objective. It is like the Lord of the Rings setting the moral of the world. Absurd.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

You didn't answer my question.

Standing Wolf
04-23-2017, 04:12 PM
How do we know what is right and wrong without some kind of objective standard?

I think the question that must logically precede that question is something along the lines of, "Is it possible to know what an objective standard is?"

When a society is going about the business of establishing and setting out its laws - it's codification of "right and wrong" - it has a number of options. It can look to an external something outside of nature - a supernatural intelligence believed to have the authority to make those determinations and demand that we adhere to them. In that scenario, we are not so much accepting the standard from that objective - outside and authoritative - authority, but from other men who have presumed to tell us what God wants us to do and not to do. It is social control using a sort of ultimate Appeal to Authority.

The society can choose, instead - or in certain selected instances - to designate what is "right or wrong" based on what approved or prohibited actions appear to benefit society or to harm it. Such judgments are open to reconsideration and revision as a society evolves and factors are taken into account that were previously ignored or simply unknown. Human slavery was accepted as "right" in human societies for thousands of years, and in our own; it was even supported by religious leaders who declared it to be a part of God's plan to bring salvation to "the heathen", complete with Bible verses.

Speaking of which, the Golden Rule would appear to be the simplest and most straightforward expression of a reasonable course to follow in dealing with others...yet it is, if you think about it, anything but "objective". If I'm treating you how I would want to be treated, that requires that I care how I am treated; and if I'm following the Golden Rule, or attempting to, that means that I'm basing my treatment of you on my perception of what is good - not on any sort of ostensibly "objective standard" given to me by God or Society.

Chris
04-23-2017, 04:24 PM
I think the question that must logically precede that question is something along the lines of, "Is it possible to know what an objective standard is?"

When a society is going about the business of establishing and setting out its laws - it's codification of "right and wrong" - it has a number of options. It can look to an external something outside of nature - a supernatural intelligence believed to have the authority to make those determinations and demand that we adhere to them. In that scenario, we are not so much accepting the standard from that objective - outside and authoritative - authority, but from other men who have presumed to tell us what God wants us to do and not to do. It is social control using a sort of ultimate Appeal to Authority.

The society can choose, instead - or in certain selected instances - to designate what is "right or wrong" based on what approved or prohibited actions appear to benefit society or to harm it. Such judgments are open to reconsideration and revision as a society evolves and factors are taken into account that were previously ignored or simply unknown. Human slavery was accepted as "right" in human societies for thousands of years, and in our own; it was even supported by religious leaders who declared it to be a part of God's plan to bring salvation to "the heathen", complete with Bible verses.

Speaking of which, the Golden Rule would appear to be the simplest and most straightforward expression of a reasonable course to follow in dealing with others...yet it is, if you think about it, anything but "objective". If I'm treating you how I would want to be treated, that requires that I care how I am treated; and if I'm following the Golden Rule, or attempting to, that means that I'm basing my treatment of you on my perception of what is good - not on any sort of ostensibly "objective standard" given to me by God or Society.


And where'd you get this subjective standard? Unless you claim it to be biologicaly wired, it did indeed come from without personally. It is knowledge you learned and gained intersubjectively. You might contribute some novel experience, perhaps even a novel opinion, but it is largely social in nature and gained in exchange, in communication, in trade, in day to day living, in moment to moment judgments of justification and condemnation of actions towards others, in society. Even if you believe in God that belief, that knowledge, is likewise intersubjective.

Standing Wolf
04-23-2017, 04:38 PM
And where'd you get this subjective standard? Unless you claim it to be biologicaly wired, it did indeed come from without personally. It is knowledge you learned and gained intersubjectively. You might contribute some novel experience, perhaps even a novel opinion, but it is largely social in nature and gained in exchange, in communication, in trade, in day to day living, in moment to moment judgments of justification and condemnation of actions towards others, in society. Even if you believe in God that belief, that knowledge, is likewise intersubjective.

If I'm understanding you, Chris, you're saying that my personal judgment of things - how I feel about them - is learned from the society I grew up in. I agree, and don't believe I've said anything different. I no doubt rambled about some, but the point I started out intending to make is that Society creates, in whatever fashion, what it may call an objective standard - whether it says, "This is what's best for all" or "This is what God wants us to do" - but in the end, it's humans making rules for humans. And over time, those rules will change - which perhaps more than anything disproves any claim to their being objective, let alone universal.

Chris
04-23-2017, 04:50 PM
If I'm understanding you, Chris, you're saying that my personal judgment of things - how I feel about them - is learned from the society I grew up in. I agree, and don't believe I've said anything different. I no doubt rambled about some, but the point I started out intending to make is that Society creates, in whatever fashion, what it may call an objective standard - whether it says, "This is what's best for all" or "This is what God wants us to do" - but in the end, it's humans making rules for humans. And over time, those rules will change - which perhaps more than anything disproves any claim to their being objective, let alone universal.

It is objective in it's being shared and in its always evolving toward a more universally moral position. What we're talking about, at least metaphorically, to bring us back to the topic, is evolution, with group selection, individual mutations (novelties) and inheretance. Re Dawkins, who uses evolution to promote progresive ideas, his mistake, even thogh he likely sees biological evolution as random, is in believing social, or moral, evolution is progressive, you cannot centrally design and plan social justice.

I din't know that we're arguing so much as, let us say, bouncing ideas off what each other says.

Beat waiting for the OP to join any dicussion!

Starman
04-23-2017, 06:30 PM
Undeniable
How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed
by Douglas Axe

(Faith communities have a commitment to doctrine. The scientific community should have a commitment to discovery, but yields to doctrine.) Science boasts intellectual openness as its core value. But when openness gives way to dogma on any particular scientific claim, we’re left with something more like bad religion than good science. To spot one of these ugly examples, look for two telltale signs. The first is official denouncement of any idea that poses a threat to the dogma, and the second is a culture of disdain for that threatening idea. – p 217

“Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” – Dutch botanist Hugo DeVries – p 220

“present theory tacitly assumes the prior existence of the entities whose features it is meant to explain.” (The Arrival of the Fittest, by Fontana and Buss) – p 221
Truth is a bigger and more profound subject than science. – p 228

Because reality can’t ultimately be grounded in physical things, materialism always fails when we ask big questions of it. – p 231

… we place faith in the essential propositions undergirding science, which means science will never be the primary path to knowing, much less the only path to knowing. Faith has always been more fundamental to human knowledge than science, and this will never change. – p 232

I am still waiting for someone to respond to my Scientific Challenge, the original post here.
crickets chirping....

Chris
04-23-2017, 06:48 PM
Undeniable
How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed
by Douglas Axe

(Faith communities have a commitment to doctrine. The scientific community should have a commitment to discovery, but yields to doctrine.) Science boasts intellectual openness as its core value. But when openness gives way to dogma on any particular scientific claim, we’re left with something more like bad religion than good science. To spot one of these ugly examples, look for two telltale signs. The first is official denouncement of any idea that poses a threat to the dogma, and the second is a culture of disdain for that threatening idea. – p 217

“Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” – Dutch botanist Hugo DeVries – p 220

“present theory tacitly assumes the prior existence of the entities whose features it is meant to explain.” (The Arrival of the Fittest, by Fontana and Buss) – p 221
Truth is a bigger and more profound subject than science. – p 228

Because reality can’t ultimately be grounded in physical things, materialism always fails when we ask big questions of it. – p 231

… we place faith in the essential propositions undergirding science, which means science will never be the primary path to knowing, much less the only path to knowing. Faith has always been more fundamental to human knowledge than science, and this will never change. – p 232

I am still waiting for someone to respond to my Scientific Challenge, the original post here.
crickets chirping....



Denies he's talking about God then invokes the Intelligent Designer of the ancient teleological argument for God.

There's nothing scientific to the challenge.

Standing Wolf
04-23-2017, 07:30 PM
It is objective in it's being shared and in its always evolving toward a more universally moral position. What we're talking about, at least metaphorically, to bring us back to the topic, is evolution, with group selection, individual mutations (novelties) and inheretance. Re Dawkins, who uses evolution to promote progresive ideas, his mistake, even thogh he likely sees biological evolution as random, is in believing social, or moral, evolution is progressive, you cannot centrally design and plan social justice.

I din't know that we're arguing so much as, let us say, bouncing ideas off what each other says.

Beat waiting for the OP to join any dicussion!

I think what got me started was Ethereal's question about - paraphrasing - whether a non-deist could have an objective standard for moral behavior. It got my attention because an assertion to that effect is something that you frequently hear from deists, who consider any action, moral or otherwise, by an non-deist to be an example of (what they call) situational ethics. Their claim is that true morality is impossible unless accompanied by a belief in God. I was simply making the point that, whether the law is framed as a common-sense code derived from human experience or as Commandments (allegedly) engraved on a couple of stone tablets, it's all humans making rules for humans.

Chris
04-23-2017, 07:50 PM
I think what got me started was Ethereal's question about - paraphrasing - whether a non-deist could have an objective standard for moral behavior. It got my attention because an assertion to that effect is something that you frequently hear from deists, who consider any action, moral or otherwise, by an non-deist to be an example of (what they call) situational ethics. Their claim is that true morality is impossible unless accompanied by a belief in God. I was simply making the point that, whether the law is framed as a common-sense code derived from human experience or as Commandments (allegedly) engraved on a couple of stone tablets, it's all humans making rules for humans.

Yes, that was the context. I guess I'm arguing you can achieve objective standards, though objectivity is usually there called universality, morality that applies to all. Lincoln, for example, argued against the idea that being smarter justified slavery by pointing out the you'll always find someone smarter than you and if you apply the logic universally ou're in trouble.

Standing Wolf
04-23-2017, 11:11 PM
Yes, that was the context. I guess I'm arguing you can achieve objective standards, though objectivity is usually there called universality, morality that applies to all. Lincoln, for example, argued against the idea that being smarter justified slavery by pointing out the you'll always find someone smarter than you and if you apply the logic universally ou're in trouble.

And I'm suggesting that as long as people and their feelings are involved in the laws' formulation and application, there is a "collective subjectivity" involved. (Thought I might have actually coined that one, but I did a search on the phrase and apparently it's already a "thing". Rats.) By which I mean that, whether it's one individual's feelings about a thing's morality or a whole lot of individuals collectively making the same judgment, it's still a judgment based on human emotion - ergo, not objective.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 02:52 PM
And I'm suggesting that as long as people and their feelings are involved in the laws' formulation and application, there is a "collective subjectivity" involved. (Thought I might have actually coined that one, but I did a search on the phrase and apparently it's already a "thing". Rats.) By which I mean that, whether it's one individual's feelings about a thing's morality or a whole lot of individuals collectively making the same judgment, it's still a judgment based on human emotion - ergo, not objective.
The true measure of objectivity would be correspondence with reality. Because human beings articulate and apply natural law, God's law or whatever you want to call it I don't see how that alone makes it subjective. True subjectivity would mean that man himself is the ultimate source of morality. That's a very problematic assertion but i won't go on as I may be putting words in your mouth.

Common Sense
04-24-2017, 02:55 PM
Interesting article on the origins of human morality and how it was a product of evolution...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-became-moral-beings-80976434/

Mister D
04-24-2017, 02:56 PM
Interesting article on the origins of human morality and how it was a product of evolution...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-became-moral-beings-80976434/

There is no such thing as morality if it is merely an evolutionary adaptation. @Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791) , this would be true subjectivity as well as circular logic.

Chris
04-24-2017, 02:56 PM
And I'm suggesting that as long as people and their feelings are involved in the laws' formulation and application, there is a "collective subjectivity" involved. (Thought I might have actually coined that one, but I did a search on the phrase and apparently it's already a "thing". Rats.) By which I mean that, whether it's one individual's feelings about a thing's morality or a whole lot of individuals collectively making the same judgment, it's still a judgment based on human emotion - ergo, not objective.

What I'm getting at is these individual feelings/opinions/ideas are not individual except in error, but the collective's/society's/the culture one is born to.

Common Sense
04-24-2017, 02:58 PM
There is no such thing as morality if it is merely an evolutionary adaptation. @Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791) , this would be true subjectivity as well as circular logic.
That's your opinion.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 03:01 PM
That's your opinion.
No, it's a fact. Your argument is illogical and I have already demonstrated that several times.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 03:02 PM
I understand why you are all uncomfortable with that. In the end, it means that good and bad aren't real categories and have no existence outside of human sentiment or...ahem biological programming.

Common Sense
04-24-2017, 03:04 PM
No, it's a fact. Your argument is illogical and I have already demonstrated that several times.

No, you actually haven't. Again, it's your opinion that you mistakenly present as fact.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 03:05 PM
No, you actually haven't. Again, it's your opinion that you mistakenly present as fact.
Then explain explain your reasoning. How does it go again? If it helps human beings survive or thrive it's good because what helps human beings survive or thrive is good...and around and around we go.

It's illogical.

Common Sense
04-24-2017, 03:05 PM
Lol...

Mister D
04-24-2017, 03:06 PM
Lol...
I didn't think so.

Christians 1

Atheists 0

lol

Chris
04-24-2017, 03:31 PM
Some argue evolution is a tautology, what survives survives. But that's a misreading, selection is descriptive of actual events, some traits are preserved or inherited.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 03:34 PM
Some argue evolution is a tautology, what survives survives. But that's a misreading, selection is descriptive of actual events, some traits are preserved or inherited.
You can describe its nature however you'd like but if in fact "morality" is merely a biological adaptation morality per se does not exist. All special pleading aside, if this is the case then "morality" is no more or less different than any other biological drive. It's by definition amoral.

Chris
04-24-2017, 03:37 PM
You can describe its nature however you'd like but if in fact "morality" is merely a biological adaptation morality per se does not exist. All special pleading aside, if this is the case then "morality" is no more or less different than any other biological drive. It's by definition amoral.

It's social not individual or biological which, I agree, renders it meaningless.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 03:42 PM
It's social not individual or biological which, I agree, renders it meaningless.

That's true too. Private, personal morality simply isn't morality.

Starman
04-29-2017, 08:06 PM
Darwinists utterly refuse to reply to the challenge of this thread, and instead try to change the subject, and claim that ONLY THEY are brilliant scientists who completely understand all of the complexity of
1. Random mutation, followed by
2. *Selection*.

Yes, it's soo complex.

The space of human hemoglobin is in excess of 10 to the 1000th power. That's how many different combinations are possible in building a 574 amino acid residue long polypeptide by any means. Ten to the 1000th power.

By comparison, there are "only" 10 to the 90th fundamental particles in the universe.

So Darwinists, explain the Darwinian synthesis of just hemoglobin, and name, oh, 100 or so functions of precursors which "evolved" along the route. Shouldn't be too difficult for geniuses like you Darwinists.


"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

Captain Obvious
04-29-2017, 08:42 PM
lol

Chris
04-29-2017, 08:54 PM
Darwinists utterly refuse to reply to the challenge of this thread, and instead try to change the subject, and claim that ONLY THEY are brilliant scientists who completely understand all of the complexity of
1. Random mutation, followed by
2. *Selection*.

Yes, it's soo complex.

The space of human hemoglobin is in excess of 10 to the 1000th power. That's how many different combinations are possible in building a 574 amino acid residue long polypeptide by any means. Ten to the 1000th power.

By comparison, there are "only" 10 to the 90th fundamental particles in the universe.

So Darwinists, explain the Darwinian synthesis of just hemoglobin, and name, oh, 100 or so functions of precursors which "evolved" along the route. Shouldn't be too difficult for geniuses like you Darwinists.


"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

That's because there are no Darwinists.

Starman
05-04-2017, 10:15 PM
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

Haeckel’s drawings ostensibly demonstrating “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
They were challenged in 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer in Archiv für Anthropogenie immediately after their publication. Some biology texts published as late as 2001, such as one by Bruce Alberts, former head of the National Academy of Sciences, showed this fraud.
https://theevolutionfraud.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/haeckels-drawings.jpg?w=584

Nor has anyone so much as attempted to answer the original scientific challenge for evolutionists, in 25 pages of posts to date, and counting.

Captain Obvious
05-04-2017, 10:38 PM
Anyone with an agenda to promote is likely to lack the objectivity to address scientific issues.

I wish I could find it but there was this religious based "science" series on video, it was shamelessly pathetic to watch them simply try to disprove science in relation to religious beliefs. I only remember them saying something about feathers and lizards. Kept saying the same thing over and over again. Kind of like the post above, how does anyone take this stuff seriously is beyond me.

Unfortunately "faith" is often based on the repetition of lies basically.