Creationism in the Classroom?

If we really were made in God's image do you think he went through something like this?
If we really were made in God's image do you think he went through something like this?

Creationism in the Classroom?

This may be a mainly American phenomenon but here in the states we have a fairly large contingency of something called Creationists. Much like those that still believe the Earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it Creationists cling to ancient ideas and concepts in favor of the well-founded scientific conclusions. Most Creationists here in the USA are Christian and they seek to supplant any scientific concepts that contradict their particular myth. Where do they get their myth? Why Genesis, the first book of the Bible, of course.

The odd thing is that while concentrating on anything scientific that contradicts their creation story they are neglecting to notice that the Bible itself contains two contradictory creation accounts.

Genesis one begins with God creating the Heavens and the Earth. Many mistakenly believe that God starts out by making the Earth or by saying let there be light. Nope. Genesis 1:1 says God created the Heavens and the Earth. It says that the Earth was without form, so apparently it existed. Then God creates light and separates the waters below from the waters above. This alone should give Creationists and Fundamentalists pause. After all this is depicting God creating the firmament, a dome that blocked out the oceans that filled outer space. References to the firmament litter the Bible, including one in Noah that claims the windows of Heaven were opened. For ancient people this was not only an explanation for why the sky was blue (water) and why it rained (water coming from above the firmament) but it also served to explain the sun moon and stars as each being fixed within layers of the firmament and spinning around the Earth. Yet you don’t see too many Bible believers talking about their being water in space above a firmament that covers the Earth… Now it is true there are Geocentrists (those that believe the Earth is the center of the solar system) still out there but even amongst Creationists they are considered nuts…

My question is if we are willing to ridicule Geocentrists than why does the American media, and indeed many Americans themselves, not do the same to Creationists. They’re getting their ideas from a book that claims the heavens are filled with water. The frightening thing is that there have been powerful political forces on the side of teaching Creationism in schools. The so called Intelligent Design movement, a deceptive rebranding of Creationism, has been fighting tooth and nail to put their religious views into science classrooms.

Most, however, are not directly pushing that the Bible be offered in these classes, instead their cry has been to “Teach the Controversy”. By this they mean they want students to be told that Evolutionary theory is only a theory in the colloquial sense and not in the scientific sense. They want their own personal, religiously motivated, objections to Evolution to be voiced in class. What they want is a seed of doubt to be planted. They want fact and sound science to be presented as if they were flimsy and fleeting. They want one hundred and fifty plus years of scientific progress to be torn to shreds by their strawman attacks.

I am unsure if they would ever be so bold as to teach the Biblical creation story in the classrooms if they won their case. If they did however I have no doubts that it would fail miserably. After all even if they taught Creationism what exactly would they teach? Magical Creation is hardly a replacement for sound science. That is not to say we should give up the fight against them and allow them to teach but merely that on equal footing Creation cannot stand up to scrutiny and has no evidence in support of it. After all how does one find evidence of a Creator who appears to be using direct divine command to summon things into existence via magic?

The honest truth is that the majority of them do not want Creation on equal footing with Evolution. They want to tear down their strawman of Evolution and give their myth a few scientific sounding words like intelligent designer and convert using the school system. Not only is this dishonest and deceptive but it is in direct violation of the First Amendment and the separation of Church and State.


Why are Evolution and Christianity at Odds?

Why are Evolution and Christianity at Odds?
   
    The truth is they probably shouldn’t be. Let’s face it, there are 2 billion Christians on the planet and of that number only a certain percentage are Creationists. The vast majority of believers accept Evolution without much of a problem. Why is that? The answer is that the fundamentalists and Creationists have committed a massive fallacy, they have confused their God for the book written about Him. The Bible has become their deity.

    I used to be a Christian so I know that at the heart of the religion is supposed to be a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Many fundamentalists have entirely lost sight of this idea, they have replaced God with the Bible and have assumed it is his word merely because they have been taught that it is. I too struggled with fundamentalism for a time, my Father was a fundamentalist and it wasn’t until I read the Bible without assuming it was true from the start that I began to see the silly and absurd aspects to it. It is a book of myths and stories most of which are meant to convey morals or proverbs. Some of these morals and proverbs still ring true today but many of the stories are also barbaric and primitive or depict God as vengeful, sometimes downright evil.

    Another reason Evolution and Christianity should have no real problem is that Evolution explains only bio-diversity. Evolution IS NOT about the origin of life. The origin of life is an entirely different scientific topic known as Abiogenesis.

    Arguing against Evolution is like arguing against gravity (see: Intelligent Falling). Even if a God exists it is clear from genetics, the fossil record, morphological similarities, and behavioral similarities that Evolution is the source of bio-diversity. Evolution might just be a natural process by which God created, however Creationists would never concede to this as it directly contradicts their myth of the week long magic trick.

One of the Ica Stones, a KNOWN hoax that Creationists use
One of the Ica Stones, a KNOWN hoax that Creationists use

Confession Time

I used to be an Old Earth Creationist. Yes back in my teenage years when I still took the Bible seriously on most of what it said you could find me online researching how Evolution was a lie and mankind had been created by God. It’s important to note that I’ve always had an interest in cryptozoology a branch of pseudoscience that specializes in things like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. Many of the creatures hunted by cryptozoologists sound a lot like dinosaurs (Mokele Mbembe for instance).

This led me to the rather insane conclusion, along with quite a few Creationist hoaxed artifacts and outright lies I was sucked into via the internet, that dinosaurs and man had co-existed. The primary hoax I fell into was the Ica Stones, a set of rocks with carvings of dinosaurs and other out of place animals in contact with human beings. The hoaxer who carved them actually confessed in 1973 but thanks to Creationists it lives on to deceive future generations.

Creationist brainwashing against Evolution had such a devastating effect that it wasn’t until I was an agnostic-theist leaning towards atheism, some years later, that I began to accept Evolution. It wasn’t that I believed in Creation anymore but that I was still resistant to Evolution. For a few months there I’d even tried to believe human beings were created by aliens but it didn’t take long for the evidence to overturn such a silly idea.

So what finally changed my mind and convinced me that Evolution was worth believing? Several Youtubers were integral in the fall of the last vestiges of my brain-washing. They are:

Aronra, Thunderf00t and DonExodus2

Evolution in Church clinches it

Would Creationists want scientists in their churches preaching how Creationism is a theory in crisis and that Evolution is a better alternative? Would they immediately claim this is a violation of their first amendment rights? I think they would go, pardon my French, apeshit if anyone tried that. And with that I think the argument is over, Creationism loses.

If there are any subjects regarding religion, Christianity or the Bible that you would like me to tackle in a future post please let me know. Your ideas, input and opinions are appreciated.



More by this Author


Comments 74 comments

DeathMetalZombie profile image

DeathMetalZombie 6 years ago from Dover, Delaware

Nessie says "eatmore bread". Haha.


gobangla 5 years ago

I've often wondered if teaching creationism in Science classes would be a good thing. Would students start to see the absurdity of it? What would Science teachers actually teach? That God creating light before he created the sun doesn't make any sense. I think teaching the controversy may hurt rather than help the creationist cause. They should be careful what they wish for.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Agreed gobangla, if Creationism was actually in schools taught beside a strong amount of Evolutionary evidence it would be a disaster for Creationists. That's why most don't actually want Genesis in the classroom, instead they want teachers to teach strawman arguments that hurt Evolution. They figure if they weaken Evolution teachings in school by making kids think there is serious doubt that they can get kids to believe their BS that way. That's what teach the controversy really means, it means lie to children and tell them there is no scientific consensus on Evolution.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"That's what teach the controversy really means, it means lie to children and tell them there is no scientific consensus on Evolution."

Science is not performed by consensus.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

That is very true nicomp. I was merely pointing out that Creationists like to pretend Evolution is a "theory in crisis" when in fact the scientific consensus is heavily in favor of Evolution.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"...when in fact the scientific consensus is heavily in favor of Evolution."

Again, science is not performed by consensus. We don't vote on theories in science class nor do we have straw polls in the lab. A heavy consensus toward any 'theory' is completely irrelevant.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

In no way am I trying to say that science is performed by consensus. Creationists like to act as if scientists are abandoning the theory of Evolution in droves like rats abandoning a sinking ship. I am merely pointing out that such isn't the case and that the vast majority of scientists accept Evolution.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

Again... it doesn't matter if the vast majority of scientists accept evolution or not. A scientific theory is not judged by the number of adherents.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

I never said that it was did I? I agree with you fully, in no way does the number of scientists who accept Evolution affect whether or not the theory is valid.

Creationists lie and say that not only is Evolution being abandoned by scientists but that said abandonment leaves Evolution as a "theory in crisis". Kinda like how climate change deniers always bring up the handful of scientists who doubt climate change and act as if that is also an idea in crisis because of a few dissenters.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

If you're arguing evolution from a scientific perspective, which you're obviously not, then it doesn't matter who is abandoning and who is not. The truth isn't dependent on who endorses it.

I understand your fascination with creationists who assert that scientists are abandoning evolution, but your rebuttal should be that their point is moot because science isn't established by counting proponents vs opponents.

At some point in history, the dissenters were the evolutionists, who suggested that descent with modification was the appropriate model. You can't have it both ways: it's not academically honest to dismiss dissenters simply because they might be in the minority.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada

"the fundamentalists and Creationists have committed a massive fallacy, they have confused their God for the book written about Him. The Bible has become their deity."

Well said. Makes a lot of sense, actually.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@Nicomp -

You're absolutely right. I should be appealing to the actual evidence rather than simply appealing to a scientific majority. If in fact scientists were abandoning evolution the question wouldn't be how many but WHY, as in what are their objections and what alternative theory are they proposing. In truth the only reason, in this case, that a consensus exists is the staggering amount of evidence which supports evolution.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"In truth the only reason, in this case, that a consensus exists is the staggering amount of evidence which supports evolution."

You're missing the point on how science works. A staggering amount of evidence is rendered moot by an iota of evidence to the contrary. You're applying the same improper logic as your 'majority of scientists' argument.

Theories are not validated by any specific or relative volume of evidence. In a nutshell, they are validated by repeatability and by the absence of evidence to the contrary.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

But shouldn't there be some amount of evidence on the pro-side before the the lack of evidence on the con-side counts for something? I could say I have telekinetic powers for instance and even if you have no evidence to the contrary my claim is still not validated until I've provided evidence on the positive end. Overall I agree though, science must be falsifiable, repeatable and stand up to scrutiny.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

Obviously there's evidence to the contrary. Some claim that a preponderance of evidence supports the theory of evolution and some say that an equally significant amount of evidence disproves descent with modification. Neither side can claim the high ground simply based on volume of evidence. Science doesn't work that way.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Well said Titen.

gobangla suggested that creationism or intelligent design should be taught along side evolution. That is the only reason we are still discussing this.

(Not until 1968 did the Supreme Court rule in Epperson vs. Arkansas that such bans contravene the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious. The Court used the same rationale in 1987 in Edwards vs Aguillard to strike down a Louisiana law that required biology teachers who taught the theory of evolution to also discuss evidence supporting the theory called "creation science.") from http://law2.umkc.edu

We sometimes forget that a very large percentage of the population never questions what they are told. That's why religion is so successful. I am always amazed that women drag their husbands and children to catholic mass every sunday where they are taught women are second class citizens. See http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Role-of-Women-in-the-C...


AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

One question, (an honest one. No slur or disrepect is intended)

If a scientific theory (in the words above of nicomp) "... are validated by repeatability . . ." how does science weigh in on a unique event?

For example, the big bang, the resurrection, the red sea, the first human genome, the first human thought. These are all events that are either held to be unique, or if you believe in cause and effect, can be assumed to had a unique first event.

How does scientific method validate a unique event if it must be repeatable?

This question becomes important if you hold the position that scientific method should be the way to objectively prove everything, including the origins of matter (or the creation, if that is your preference)

Just curious.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Thanks for the comment AntonOfTheNorth. As you can see above I don't fully agree with Nicomp, he/she makes some good points however. With a unique event we probably can't do anything with repeatedly however that doesn't mean we can't study such an event. As for your examples some of those are already unproved, such as the Resurrection. If I were to give such an event the benefit of the doubt the chances of it being unique is reduced, even in the Bible itself there are a lot of people who come back to life other than Jesus himself.

Even if the event is unique that doesn't mean we can't find evidence of it. We observe the background radiation and red shift that are evidence of the Big Bang for instance. Repeatability, as far as I know, refers almost exclusively to experimentation which is only one part of science.


peanutroaster profile image

peanutroaster 5 years ago from New England


toobsucker 5 years ago

"The so called Intelligent Design movement, a deceptive rebranding of Creationism, has been fighting tooth and nail to put their religious views into science classrooms"

Incorrect. Creationism is strictly the biblical account of intelligent design. Many agnostics and atheists (Raelians) believe in intelligent design via aliens. Hindus also believe in I.D. but are not creationists. Please get your facts straight before you make assertions.

==========

"Most, however, are not directly pushing that the Bible be offered in these classes, instead their cry has been to “Teach the Controversy”. By this they mean they want students to be told that Evolutionary theory is only a theory in the colloquial sense and not in the scientific sense. They want their own personal, religiously motivated, objections to Evolution to be voiced in class."

Again you are incorrect. The scientific method of falsification adopts the "attack the theory" method. Evolutionary science has effectively banned the attack the theory method out of fear evolution will be falsified.

Every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified, yet this theory is is not allowed to be attacked as other theories are out of fear

There is no reason other than fear of falsification to not teach the controversy. All I.D. proponents know this. Darwinian evolution is on the ropes and is about to go down, and evolutionary science is trying their best to prevent this from happening.

Attacking a theory is what science is supposed to be about, why has evolutionary science escaped this method?

=========

"Magical Creation is hardly a replacement for sound science"

Your post is littered with unsound reasoning. Magic is not needed to build a cell or arrange DNA sequences to create specific species. Only an intelligence capable of it.

And the little fact that science (Venter, Church and many others) practice I.D. every day. Venter said in 2011 science will soon I.D. a cell.

Science practices the very thing they say is not science. The hypocrisy in science is amazing.

===========

No I.D.er rejects evolution, we reject its scope and mechanisms. All the evolution observed is the selection/gene switching of pre-written information and is very limited. The selection of the luckiest randomness is now clearly understood to be invalid in building new body plans

And lastly if you do not know how the cell arose, how is it your sure it was not intelligently designed?

Liberal logic fails miserably


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@toobsucker

The idea of Creation is separate from the intelligent design and creationist movement. In my experience most of those who hold to alien creation beliefs would prefer to distance themselves from the religious nature of the vast majority of intelligent design proponents. As such I stand by my statement that he Intelligent design MOVEMENT is a rebranding of creationism.

"yet this theory is is not allowed to be attacked as other theories are out of fear"

Evolution isn't attacked? You must be joking. Evolution is possibly the most attacked scientific idea in history, save perhaps Galileo's heliocentrism few scientific ideas have stirred more ire. Simply because religious objections aren't taken seriously within the scientific community hardly means that evolution gets off scott free.

"Attacking a theory is what science is supposed to be about, why has evolutionary science escaped this method?"

It hasn't. For decades Creationists and fellow scientists alike have had free range to raise their concerns about evolution. Don't see many Lamarck fans around anymore do we? The more we learn the more evidence supports evolution leaving absurd or misguided religious objections as all that remains.

"Science practices the very thing they say is not science. The hypocrisy in science is amazing."

We have synthetically created a cell, that has no correlation with the myths that creationists put forth. There is a vast difference between a God commanding by some divine magic that life form itself from dust (such as in genesis) and, say, the alien idea, that an intelligence smart enough to seed life on Earth did so. There is a difference between the Intelligent design of the religious and anything else calling itself "intelligent design".

"And lastly if you do not know how the cell arose, how is it your sure it was not intelligently designed?"

I'm not sure, in fact I think there is a possibility that life was seeded here and THEN evolved afterward. But we don't have any evidence that that's what happened and there are numerous hypotheses as to how it could've happened naturally. The only thing I rule out is the supernatural explanations, because they aren't explanations at all.


toobsucker 5 years ago

"The idea of Creation is separate from the intelligent design and creationist movement. In my experience most of those who hold to alien creation beliefs would prefer to distance themselves from the religious nature of the vast majority of intelligent design proponents. As such I stand by my statement that he Intelligent design MOVEMENT is a rebranding of creationism"

It does not appear you understood me. Creation/Creationism is strictly the biblical (Jews, Christians & Muslims) interpretation of intelligent design. There are other interpretations of intelligent design and they are not called creationists.

Hindues, some Buddhists, Bahai, Taoists, Deists, alien heads etc.. etc.. are not referred to as creationists, however they all would be considered intelligent design proponents.

Many agnostics (completely undecided) believe in I.D., they just reserve their opinion on the identity of the designer.

I will agree most opponents of evolution are creationists because they comprise the 3 biggest religions in to one group. Therefore when we (all intelligent design proponents) attempt to clarify the distinction between I.D. and creationism, all the evolutionists see are over 80% of the "intelligent design proponents" are creationists, therefore they make the two terms synonymous and they are not.

=======

"Evolution isn't attacked? You must be joking. Evolution is possibly the most attacked scientific idea in history, save perhaps Galileo's heliocentrism few scientific ideas have stirred more ire. Simply because religious objections aren't taken seriously within the scientific community hardly means that evolution gets off scott free"

The ire being stirred is by those outside the majority of consensus. Not only is evolution not attacked by the majority in science, every prediction evolution has made has been falsified, and science just very quickly modifies the theory so it can never be falsified and the ignorant public is completely unaware of it.

There are many quotes from science that state science has a self imposed strict adherence to naturalism. Science will not, can not, must not consider any hypothesis other than an atheistic one. therefor no matter what evidence is presented, science prohibits its self (illogically so) from I.D.

====

"Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting? elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78, 1979 p.574

====

You also seem completely unaware that one of the main goals of the intelligent design movement is to get schools to "Teach the controversy"

Just Google "Teach the controversy" and read. The fact is teaching the controversy(or attacking the theory) is NOT allowed in schools by Darwinian evolutionists.

We do not have objective science here, we have a dogmatic atheistic religion here that refuses to entertain any other hypothesis.

Both Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller have publicly said they are not in favor of "confusing the students" with teaching the controversy.

====

"We have synthetically created a cell, that has no correlation with the myths that creationists put forth. There is a vast difference between a God commanding by some divine magic that life form itself from dust (such as in genesis) and, say, the alien idea, that an intelligence smart enough to seed life on Earth did so. There is a difference between the Intelligent design of the religious and anything else calling itself "intelligent design".

Your understanding is the typical brainwashed atheist response. All atheists either have seriously bad logic, or you're all parroting some seriously bad logic.

The bible does not teach God waved his hands and... **whizz bang POOF**... and when the smoke cleared we have a fully devolved species, although atheists love to believe this.

God used his intelligence to create a factory cell capable of building a sentient biological machine capable of pondering its own existence. God also used his intelligence to make one of these factory cells so intrinsically valuable you would risk your own life to save it. No magic is needed, only the raw material (found in the dust of the earth) and an intelligence capable of building a cell with them and writing codes in DNA,

You need to lose your irrational view of the creation process

=======

"The only thing I rule out is the supernatural explanations, because they aren't explanations at all."

The "super natural" is where your limited mind files a subject it has yet to understand. The super natural does not exist. All of quantum physics would have been super natural 200 years ago to science.

The "spirit realm" was unfalsifiable superstitious foolishness to the "rational minds" until science labeled it M theory and called it other dimensions. Then the "foolish super natural fairy tail" becomes the "logical scientific hypothesis" simply by understanding it and putting a label on it

Everything God does is completely understandable. The entire universe is based on math. Some physicists say the universe runs like a giant PC program. And the single cell runs just like a factory a mind would build.

Attempting to take away Gods intelligence and replacing it with silly magic powers is a transparent straw man that all creationists see through


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@toobsucker

“There are other interpretations of intelligent design and they are not called creationists.”

But the term itself is a rebrandishing that gained traction only after it was adopted in the book of Pandas and People, only after fundamentalist Christian creationists embraced the term. You can lump all those disparaging concepts of intelligent design together if you like but I see the intelligent design movement as being overwhelmingly controlled and driven by religious interests. Non-religious IDers, IMO, would do best to distance themselves from the religious.

“and science just very quickly modifies the theory so it can never be falsified and the ignorant public is completely unaware of it.”

What about the prediction regarding Tiktaalik, where scientists knew where to dig and how deep to find one of the transitionals between fish and amphibians? Seems that prediction turned out quite correct. The majority of scientists don't oppose evolution because evolution is constantly validated, just as most have rejected a solid state Universe and accepted the Big Bang.

“science prohibits its self (illogically so) from I.D.”

This is true to some degree primarily because most supernatural claims, be they claims of creation or otherwise, are not testable with the scientific method. With the exception of something like faith healing it is difficult to probe into the supernatural using science. Now claims of alien interference are different, since biological entities, or even deities that aren't supernatural (perhaps a deistic or natural God) are a bit more within the purview of science.

“The fact is teaching the controversy(or attacking the theory) is NOT allowed in schools by Darwinian evolutionists.”

The fact is that there i very little controversy about evolution on the whole. While there are internal debates (such as where species like microraptor and archeopteryx fit transitionally) the basic principle of evolution is entirely sound. Genetic variance over generations eventually leads to the emergence of new species, there is no controversy there.

The religious creationists seek to “teach the controversy” as a way to tear down evolution, confuse children about how solid the science is behind it and then insert their own religious beliefs. Teaching the controversy may as well be synonymous with strengthening religious indoctrinations chances of dumbing children down.

“we have a dogmatic atheistic religion here that refuses to entertain any other hypothesis.”

Name for me another scientifically plausible hypothesis for the bio-diversity of life. The only other scientific theory which contested evolution was Lamarckism and that was phased out as more and more evidence for evolution was found. Claims that aliens or gods designed life are not scientific, they have no good evidence behind them. You may as well call heliocentrism a religion, merely because an idea stands the test of time doesn't make it a dogmatic religion.

“God used his intelligence to create a factory cell capable of building a sentient biological machine capable of pondering its own existence.”

I'm the one with bad logic? Compare your statement to the text of genesis. No factories are mentioned and no intelligence, God creates by direct verbal command in the story. A man is created from dirt and later a woman is created from a rib, these are supernatural occurrences not scientific ones.

“You need to lose your irrational view of the creation process”

The only rational way to view it is to say that alien beings seeded life on Earth and created the first cells here, but then we'd still need EVIDENCE to even claim such an idea was plausible let alone that it was the best possible explanation. We've found no evidence and no reason to believe that aliens, gods, or any intelligence was involved in the development of life on earth.

“The "spirit realm" was unfalsifiable superstitious foolishness to the "rational minds" until science labeled it M theory and called it other dimensions”

Except that the mythical spirit realm has no correlation to the idea of other dimensions put forth in M Theory. What you're doing is no different than those who like taking the story of the wheel within a wheel and claiming it was actually a UFO. The spirit-realm is still superstitious and to my knowledge no legitimate scientist studying other dimensions has come forward with claims or ghosts, angels, or even other dimensional beings.

“and replacing it with silly magic powers is a transparent straw man that all creationists see through”

Except that the supernatural is exactly what God uses in the Bible. There's no strawman, go read Genesis, or the Koran, and see how much intelligence those barbaric genocidal deities like to use. If you want to posit a God separate from those of the abrahamic faiths, one who doesn't use supernatural powers, than by all means do so but then if you're going to do that why bother calling it a God to begin with?


toobsucker 5 years ago

"I see the intelligent design movement as being overwhelmingly controlled and driven by religious interests. Non-religious IDers, IMO, would do best to distance themselves from the religious"

Unlike what most atheists want to believe creationists do not want, and are not asking for the religious version of I.D. to be taught. We understand there is to be a separation between church & state.

The best shot atheism has to prevent I.D. from being a valid scientific hypothesis is to convince everyone all I.D. proponents have religions motives and want the bible to be taught and take over the origins of species in science. This is completely untrue.

All creationists are confident once I.D. is established as a valid hypothesis for the origins of the cell & species, most people will chose God as the designer. The atheists in science know very well God is the most likely candidate to be the designer, and it is this reason alone that prevents the atheists in science from accepting I.D. The atheists are scared I.D. will open the door to let God in.

However if aliens landed and claim to have built the cell and the separate species, atheists would have no problem at all accepting I.D. into science, because they would then have an excuse to prohibit God as the designer. Naturalism is held onto by science for one reason only, because I.D. is the only other alternative, and at this point God would be the most likely candidate for the designer.

====

"What about the prediction regarding Tiktaalik, where scientists knew where to dig and how deep to find one of the transitionals between fish and amphibians"

Two problems with it

1) http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2...

"Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal"

"The oldest known tracks of a four-limbed land animal could rewrite part of vertebrate evolution."

"Some prints, showing individual digits, were found in limestone slabs unearthed in a quarry near Zache?mie, Poland, dated to about 395 million years ago — more than 18 million years before tetrapods were thought to have evolved."

“Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.” (Janvier & Clement, 2010)

2) The fossil record can never prove evolution. Darwinian evolutionists need to get their heads out of the fossil record (that is nothing but stasis anyway) and get into molecular biology, because it is only at the molecular level that can prove the genome can evolve as predicted. There are reams of information on how the genotypes & phenotypes do not match the evolutionary predictions, humans share more genes with 500my coral than we do with many supposedly closer related species.

If you want all the lengthy information ill post it

What science has coined convergent evolution (unrelated look alikes) should tell you similarity in features does not equate a close genetic relationship.

========

"science prohibits its self (illogically so) from I.D.”

"This is true to some degree primarily because most supernatural claims, be they claims of creation or otherwise, are not testable with the scientific method"

Using an intelligence to build a cell and specifically arrange DNA sequences does not equate a super natural event. Again I go back the the very successful atheistic tactic of making religious creationism and secular I.D. synonymous in order to fool people into believing I.D. equates super natural hocus pocus.

If atheists allow the rational concept of I.D. in science, God is following right behind as the best choice for the designer, and atheists know it. Atheists fear I.D. as the gateway to what they reject

=======

"The fact is that there i very little controversy about evolution on the whole. While there are internal debates (such as where species like microraptor and archeopteryx fit transitionally) the basic principle of evolution is entirely sound. Genetic variance over generations eventually leads to the emergence of new species, there is no controversy there"

There is a huge internal controversy brewing and the non studying public are unaware just as you are. Look up "The Altenberg 16" these are 16 hard core evolutionists that also reject I.D. but are coming to grips that selection acting on random mutations will never do what was predicted. They are quietly looking for new mechanisms now.

This along with molecular biology has evolution in complete upheaval. Every prediction is failing (ill post the failures in a separate post if you want them.)

Science is now well aware most of the genome is not subject to evolutionary mechanisms, they are dubbed the ultra conserved elements (UCE). The UCE are devastating to evolution but the egos in science will not admit they were wrong.

Atheistic evolution requires 100% system change (evolution), yet the vast majority of the genome is highly conserved (unable to evolve) and evolutionary science has no explanation for it.

All the evolution observed is now know to be from info swapping/gene switching of highly conserved genes. The environment does effect what genes will be turned off & on, but its directed by a calculating adaptation mechanisms and not selection of randomness.

The selection of randomness is the only mechanisms the atheist has. Total randomness needed no explanation, however directed adaptation can not be explained by randomness.

=====

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/...

"Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective"

"A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order"

"Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins' behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random"

There are many examples of evolutionary experiments refuting the theory. Proteins evolving is an absolute necessity for evolution, yet when proteins are subjected to evolutionary experiments the cells revert the proteins back to the previous state. Proteins do not evolve like predicted. This is why the fossil record shows nothing but stasis & sudden appearance

Protein misfolding (proteins changing their folds) is essential for Darwinian evolution or morphology can never take place, yet proteins show resistance to this very thing.

===

"Name for me another scientifically plausible hypothesis for the bio-diversity of life"

The bio-diversity of life stems from one thing and one thing only, specific DNA & RNA arrangements, that's it nothing more.

A sentient calculating mind is by far the best mechanism to get specific DNA arrangements. Science has rejected the simplest and most rational explanation for DNA sequence arrangements in favor of the laughably ridiculous mechanism of selection of lucky randomness.

You as well as science reject a mind as a mechanism for DNA sequence arrangements for one reason, because that mind could be Gods, and you don't want to deal with that, so you cling to the logically absurd.

Evolution has no explanation for UCE, I.D. on the other hand explains UCE perfectly, because all intelligently designed systems have UCE.

======

"I'm the one with bad logic? Compare your statement to the text of genesis. No factories are mentioned and no intelligence, God creates by direct verbal command in the story"

Wrong, God created species from the elements of the earth, that's all the bible says. For God to go into great detail with DNA & RNA & machines that read information & buil


toobsucker 5 years ago

It appears half of my post was cut off due to character limitations, here is the rest

"I'm the one with bad logic? Compare your statement to the text of genesis. No factories are mentioned and no intelligence, God creates by direct verbal command in the story"

Wrong, God created species from the elements of the earth, that's all the bible says. For God to go into great detail with DNA & RNA & machines that read information & build proteins from them would have been incoherent nonsense to 99% of the people who ever read the bible

=======

"The only rational way to view it is to say that alien beings seeded life on Earth and created the first cells here"

Here is where your logic & reasoning fall apart, tell me why small life (aliens) can exist and be the designer, but big life (God) can not?. I can tell a liberal minded atheist immediately when he speaks of aliens existing but rejects God from existing without giving a reason why (other than I can't comprehend God) big "God life" can not exist. Your an atheist because your mind can't comprehend a God existing

=========

"Except that the mythical spirit realm has nocorrelation to the idea of other dimensions put forth in M Theory"

And how is it you know this?. Look at the definition of both of them, they are virtually identical. They both posit an unseen reality that exists without evidence. You can not accept the two may be one in the same because it would validate theistic claims by doing so.

=======

"If you want to posit a God separate from those of the abrahamic faiths, one who doesn't use supernatural powers, than by all means do so but then if you're going to do that why bother calling it a God to begin with?"

Because in order for things in the universe to work they must make sense from an engineering point of view. You can not accept God uses the same principles we do to get things to work properly.

If the concept of God remains super natural foolish superstition its easier for your mind to reject him. If you start to look at the concept of God as a rational proposition based in logic & reason then your atheism has no valid ground to stand on.

You understand a all knowing being would have an intelligence level that would appear "super natural" to you simply because you can't comprehend it.

I believe the tree of life had transposable elements that would have kept DNA replication at 100% accuracy and prevented the aging process. There was nothing magical or super natural about it.

It is the atheists that have abandoned rational thought in order to prevent the concept of God from being accepted


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@toobsucker

“The atheists in science know very well God is the most likely candidate to be the designer”

Atheists don't believe in God, and secondly the supernatural is never a more likely explanation than the natural. What is this God?? Interdimensional? Beyond time and space? An alien being? What defines it, what are its characteristics. Far from the best candidate gods are the worst candidate, especially ones that carry religious baggage.

“The atheists are scared I.D. will open the door to let God in.”

I've yet to meet any atheist scared of Intelligent Design. The concern is that creationists will be able to brainwash children by tearing down legitimate science in order to insert unfounded unproved nonsense.

“because they would then have an excuse to prohibit God as the designer”

Actually it's because the natural is always more plausible than the supernatural. Again what kind of “God” is this? Where is it from?

“What science has coined convergent evolution (unrelated look alikes) should tell you similarity in features does not equate a close genetic relationship.”

Right, because the genes controlling physical appearance of an organism make up only a certain portion.

“If atheists allow the rational concept of I.D. in science, God is following right behind as the best choice for the designer”

The only rational GOD would have to be a deistic one, one within nature and not outside of it. It's not an impossible idea but it's going to catch opposition from both the religious and the non-religious. It also contradicts the vast majority of religious ideas of God. God is all powerful in Christian scripture, yet how could a God existing within nature be all powerful? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways.

“Atheistic evolution requires 100% system change (evolution), yet the vast majority of the genome is highly conserved (unable to evolve) and evolutionary science has no explanation for it.”

I'm pretty sure that “atheistic” evolution posits a good degree of the genome is preserved. Evolutionary changes act on pre-existing DNA do they not? New information in the form of mutations is fairly rare.

“however directed adaptation can not be explained by randomness.”

You mentioned the environment though, that directs evolution. Plus you seem to be ruling out non-intelligent mechanisms that could direct evolution. Merely because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we get to stick in God just to pretend he explains it.

“This is why the fossil record shows nothing but stasis & sudden appearance.”

Except that it doesn't. Both whale evolution and horse evolution are well documented in the fossil record with numerous transitionals evident. The fossil record is a bit like a flip book with some of the pictures missing, that doesn't stop us from making accurate inferences on the relationships of the images to each other.

“A sentient calculating mind is by far the best mechanism to get specific DNA arrangements.”

How does this mind change life without being visible? Human beings have changed considerably since we left Africa, where exactly is this sentient mind flying around altering us specifically? Or is it an automated system guided from some control booth somewhere in intraspace? The idea is highly speculative, even absurd, that a God, natural or not, is going around specifically altering organisms and bending them to its will.

“Wrong, God created species from the elements of the earth, that's all the bible says”

Genesis 1:11 '11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”

You're wrong, God verbally commands the land to produce plants, that's all that happens in the story, anything else is interpretation beyond what the text actually says.

“Here is where your logic & reasoning fall apart, tell me why small life (aliens) can exist and be the designer, but big life (God) can not?”

It isn't that God cannot exist it's that aliens are more plausible, but that depends on your definition of God. How big is this God? Where did it come from? What is it's motive? The God explanation simply raises more questions, though to be fair so does the alien explanation.

“Your an atheist because your mind can't comprehend a God existing”

I was a Christian for most of my life, I was raised in a fundamentalist household. I'm more than capable of comprehending a God. By the way I do reject the alien explanation, it merely is more likely than the existence of a supernatural deity. It's also far easier to prove aliens than a God, as I said a God brings with it religious connotations, and if this God isn't supernatural, and is merely part of nature, perhaps interdimensional, than calling it a God is pointless.

“You can not accept the two may be one in the same because it would validate theistic claims by doing so.”

There are non-theistic spirit realms, a spirit realm is not necessarily a theistic claim and M-theory and its parent String theory aren't even proved at this point

“If you start to look at the concept of God as a rational proposition based in logic & reason then your atheism has no valid ground to stand on.”

Thus far you've only attempted to tear down modern science in an attempt to insert your God into the unknown. This is fallacious, its a God of the Gaps. Show me some logical argument for your God other than “Science can't explain X”.

“You can not accept God uses the same principles we do to get things to work properly.”

The question is not what principles he used but what MEANS he used. In the Bible God uses divine commands, he speaks and things obey automatically and conform directly to his will. Such a being would, by definition, be supernatural. What MEANS do you suggest that God used to create? And yes an all knowing being would be supernatural, it certainly couldn't have NATURAL origins, unless you propose that it is timeless, eternal, in which case it's existence isn't contingent upon nature, making it SUPERNATURAL.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Well said Titen-Sxull. Do you think toobsucker knows how silly he sounds. He certainly does not understand the science he talks about and he makes ridicules claims of which he knows nothing about “The atheists in science know very well God is the most likely candidate to be the designer”. Where did he ever get that? If science were to determine life could not have started on earth (and that is a big IF), why would we look at a fictitious god as the most likely candidate? Which god? Let's go with Zeus. Does Zeus sound like the most likely candidate? Sounds silly, but there was a time when someone like toobsucker would have you think Zeus was the most likely candidate.


toobsucker 5 years ago

1/3

"and secondly the supernatural is never a more likely explanation than the natural. What is this God?? Interdimensional? Beyond time and space? An alien being? What defines it, what are its characteristics. Far from the best candidate gods are the worst candidate, especially ones that carry religious baggage"

You have revealed your reasoning process with "especially ones that carry religious baggage". Atheism/naturalism is an emotionally based philosophical position and not based in logic & reason. Lets make one thing clear, by "natural" you mean by the selection of a mindless undirected random process, rather than a sentient calculating mind (which you have erroneously dubbed super natural) specifically arranging & freezing DNA sequences.

Your problem is not with a mind, your problem is with a big mind you may have to answer to. This is why the small alien mind is acceptable to you but big God mind is not. You illogically reject God because of the "religious baggage" of having to obey a God mind.

A sentient calculating mind is the most rational explanation for extremely precise functional conserved DNA sequences. Atheists have abandoned the most rational explanation in favor the logically absurd mechanisms of the selection of lucky randomness that gives no explanation for how the UCE became conserved (unable to evolve) after they became functional

Not only is the theory of the selection of the luckiest randomness completely ridiculous in building conserved information systems, it has never been observed in any other application. Every example we have of conserved functional information systems come from a mind, never do we observe the selection of random changes producing conserved functional information systems.

You clearly don't understand the implications highly conserved information system have on a theory that requires continual system evolutionary change from species to species. Start your theory at the single cell (as you jump right over cell evolution) and see what happens when you attempt evolve species specific highly conserved overlapping information systems.

You can not evolve overlapping information systems without destroying information on multiple levels. Like one letter in cross word puzzle that makes two overlapping words coherent, change (evolve) that one letter and both words become meaningless. The genome is littered with codependent information that is evolutionary constrained by its overlapping nature

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17511511

A first look at? ARFome: dual-coding genes in mammalian genomes

"Coding of multiple proteins by overlapping reading frames is not a feature one would associate with eukaryotic genes. Indeed, codependency between codons of overlapping protein-coding regions IMPOSE A UNIQUE SET OF EVOLUTIONARY CONSTRAINTS making it a costly arrangement.... Here we show that although dual coding IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE BY CHANCE... Because our approach is conservative, we expect mammals to possess more dual-coding genes"

The fatal dilemma for evolution is the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus & Species are proving to have highly specific ultra conserved overlapping information systems. If evolution is to evolve the billions different species & proteins they must constantly change the highly conserved species specific information systems as the organisms evolve. Novel functional proteins must be a result of the selection of the luckiest random mutations. There is reams of information on the effects of protein misfolding (i.e. Darwinian evolution). here is just one

http://www.nature.com/nature/i­nsights/6968.html

"Quality Control in the Protein Factory: A recent review article in Nature, "protein misfolding," notes that the dogma that "transcription turns DNA into RNA, and translation of RNA gives you protein" is incomplete, for proteins must still be folded into their proper form. Studies of protein folding, "are revealing a tightly regulated assembly line, where multiple factors guide nascent proteins to select the correct shape from an almost infinite array of possibilities." In addition to folding, there is "stringent quality-control," which ensure that, "the misfolded products are targeted for degradation before they cause harm." Indeed many diseases, including, "prion diseases, diabetes and cancer" may be caused by the failure to identify misfolded proteins"

Evolution from a single cell to every organism we see around us requires billions of new proteins to constantly arise as the organisms morph into another species. Therefor not only do you need extremely precise protein folds to evolve, you also need to evolve the species specific error correction mechanisms for the new proteins and other distinct biological systems. The error correction mechanism for proteins in a fish would not be the same as in a human.

The fact is this transition from one set of "highly conserved over lapping information systems" to a different set of "highly conserved over lapping information systems" is never observed to take place . The UCE falsifies your theory and the liberal philosophers in the world have yet to understand this.

===

"I've yet to meet any atheist scared of Intelligent Design. The concern is that creationists will be able to brainwash children by tearing down legitimate science in order to insert unfounded unproved nonsense"

You have validated my statement. People who are scared are concerned. Atheists fear the legitimate tearing down of their dogmatic religion of naturalism by I.D. because they are "concerned" it will bring creationism & God into peoples minds. I.D. opens the gate to God and this is why atheists unequivocally must equate I.D. with super natural hocus pocus, unless the aliens show up and claim responsibility

As I said if aliens landed and claimed they created the cell & specifically arranged DNA sequences to produce specific species you would have no problem at all accepting I.D. and you know this. Once God (someone you would have to answer to for your actions) is removed from the equation, you & Dawkins are then free to "logically conclude" the reason why "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" is because ALIENSDIDIT, yes now it all makes perfect sense to your atheist mind once God is removed.

You are blinded to critical thinking by your emotional presupposition that God does not exist, once those feelings are justified by aliens removing God from the equation, you can allow logic & reason to proceed and you can let the duck be what it appears to be,,, a duck.


toobsucker 5 years ago

2/3

"The only rational GOD would have to be a deistic one, one within nature and not outside of it. It's not an impossible idea but it's going to catch opposition from both the religious and the non-religious. It also contradicts the vast majority of religious ideas of God. God is all powerful in Christian scripture, yet how could a God existing within nature be all powerful? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways"

The reason why a God / designer would more than likely exist before our space time continuum is because it explains the universes fine tuning for life. There is no need for a unfalsifiable multiverse hypothesis if a God/life existed before our universe did and created the conserved constants

A God/intelligent designer coming into existence after the universe came into existence does not explain the multiple "happy accidents" that make carbon based life possible, it only explains the complicated genomes that came afterward

Logic can not regulate a life forms attributes without a reason (only the liberal philosopher does this) so once you accept other life can exist, you now need a reason to start limiting its attributes to be less than God like. The only reason you have to prohibit a all knowing thus all powerful life form from existing is your mind can't comprehend it, therefore you conclude the incomprehensible equates the super natural thus it can not exist

========

"I'm pretty sure that “atheistic” evolution posits a good degree of the genome is preserved. Evolutionary changes act on pre-existing DNA do they not? New information in the form of mutations is fairly rare."

Atheistic evolution starts with constantly changing chemical reactions in a primordial soup, it is impossible to preserve anything when the entire system must be subject to slow constant evolutionary change. Why do you think science avoids evolutionary experiments with the single cell, because they know it would fail to build new functional proteins. Darwinian evolution could be falsified in no

time at all with the single cell

======

"You mentioned the environment though, that directs evolution. Plus you seem to be ruling out non-intelligent mechanisms that could direct evolution. Merely because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we get to stick in God just to pretend he explains it."

The only non-intelligent mechanisms are the selection of randomness that is being ruled out by science. Your problem is you have already decided a mind can not be a mechanism before knowing what the mechanism actually is. Its illogical to determine scientific facts based on what is not known.

======

"This is why the fossil record shows nothing but stasis & sudden appearance.”

"Except that it doesn't. Both whale evolution and horse evolution are well documented in the fossil record with numerous transitionals evident"

There are contradiction to your horse evolution

" ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50,

p.35

Secondly most creationists believe as I do that God did not create billions of separate species, he created the families or genus with many slight variations in them and allowed selection to separate them. For example all canines came from one breeding pair with many pre-loaded variations that were eventually separated by selection. That said science agrees all major groups appear suddenly

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

"The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution" Koonin EV.

""Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups? within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal...In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable"

======

"How does this mind change life without being visible? Human beings have changed considerably since we left Africa, where exactly is this sentient mind flying around altering us specifically? "

Preloaded slight variations exist, gene swapping does take place within species but they are minor changes. You witness minor variation originating from pre-written genes and make a leaping assumption large wholesale changes also took place, when molecular biology is proving there are limits to the variations.

======

"You're wrong, God verbally commands the land to produce plants, that's all that happens in the story, anything else is interpretation beyond what the text actually says'

Incorrect God does not command the elements of the earth to create anything. God brings forth (creates) the seed bearing life forms from the elements of the earth not by the elements of the earth

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Just as he does in Gen 1:24

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

I have no problem with a all powerful God verbally creating information for cells & species, but they are not created from nothing by hocu pocus, they are created from the elements of earth with Gods intelligent foresight.


toobsucker 5 years ago

3/3

"It isn't that God cannot exist it's that aliens are more plausible, but that depends on your definition of God. How big is this God? Where did it come from?"

And why are aliens more plausible, is it because your mind can easily comprehend aliens?. You can not limit a life forms attributes without a reason. Logic has no reason to limit a life forms intelligence level other than it knows everything that can be known. It is not until a life form become all knowing do we have a reason to put a cap on its intelligence level.

I believe God was a product of abiogenesis before the universe & before entropy. Any life that existed without entropy can never die, any life that can never die must eventually become all knowing thus all powerful

=====

"as I said a God brings with it religious connotations, and if this God isn't supernatural, and is merely part of nature, perhaps interdimensional, than calling it a God is pointless."

Again you show your motives with the "religious connotations" statement. God is not determined by the dimension he lives in or the material he is made of, he is determined by his power and intelligence level. If a block of cheese was all knowing, a block of cheese would be God.

You also have a faulty definition of God. Read psalms 82, God calls man god (over the animals). God (or Elohim) simply means a position of authority over someone else. Moses and the Hebrew judges were called Elohim (gods). There are many Elohim, but only one most high Elohim and he is God

=====

"Show me some logical argument for your God other than “Science can't explain X”."

The logical argument is, there is no lines of reasoning that prohibits a all knowing thus all powerful intelligence from existing, atheist put limitations on what life forms can & can not be, and they do so by philosophical reasons and not logical ones

===

"The question is not what principles he used but what MEANS he used. In the Bible God uses divine commands, he speaks and things obey automatically and conform directly to his will...What MEANS do you suggest that God used to create?'

First, by what means God used has no relevance to the evidence for design. Birds & bees build nests & hives by different means than humans would use, yet both can clearly be seen to be designed. And science will not be using the same means to create DNA 200 years from now as they do today. It is the end product & sum of all its parts that determines its origins, not by what means the parts were assembled. Just as the means of reading & writing have changed from pen & paper to PCs & keyboards. The means have no relevance.

You think God speaking and the elements following his command is super natural.? Do you understand the placebo effect (faith) is proven to make physiological changes in the body?. Do you understand in quantum mechanics, the observer can determine end results?

Are these super natural?

The fact is, there is a connection between a mind & the elements of the universe. One day science will discover the mechanisms and it will then be moved from the super natural realm to the natural realm simply by understanding and labeling it

====

"And yes an all knowing being would be supernatural, it certainly couldn't have NATURAL origins'

Tell me at what point up the intellectual scale do we make the transition from natural to super natural? . its at the point you can no longer comprehend it. A PC would be super natural to a Neanderthal, and there is nothing you could say to convince him other wise. Its not until the Neanderthal understands how it works does he move it to the realm of the natural.

If something can be qualified/quantified & be explainable, it is natural. If something can not be qualified/quantified & be explainable, it is super natural. Its that simple. And I believe everything is explainable, science just knows much less than they think they do. Einstein understood all "intelligent men" are like small children trying to understand a library of information, and what they do not understand they call super natural.

====

"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books . It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranges and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." - Albert Einstein


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@toobsucker

“Lets make one thing clear, by "natural" you mean by the selection of a mindless undirected random process”

CONSCIOUSLY undirected, however there are the laws of nature, which are, in general descriptions of how things behave and interact. Far from random the laws of physics have allowed us to predict and learn a great deal about the way reality works.

“You illogically reject God because of the "religious baggage" of having to obey a God mind.”

It's a bit more complicated than that, there's a hub about my deconversion if you care to read it, it has a lot more to do with logical and moral issues with the Bible (which lead to the downfall of my Christianity) followed by a period of pantheism and deism that ultimately lead to atheism. Also I fail to see how the existence of God requires that one obey said God. Presumably you believe in this God yes? Have you ever disobeyed it? Than it's existence is irrelevant to whether or not humans can disobey it.

“A sentient calculating mind is the most rational explanation for extremely precise functional conserved DNA sequences”

Is it? Once again in order to posit this God you have to explain what exactly it is, where it is from and what MEANS it uses to affect change. You have yet to show any reason why an intelligent mind, let alone your God, is the most rational explanation.

“Evolution from a single cell to every organism we see around us requires billions of new proteins to constantly arise as the organisms morph into another species.”

Evolution is a very simple concept, one which obviously takes place. There is no doubt that each generation is different from the next genetically, these minor changes add up over thousands of generations. Are you suggesting that if we let a population reproduce in a shifting environment for, let's say, 80 million years, that at the end of that time we won't be looking at a different species?

Okay, for the sake of saving time and not having to type out more than one comment let's say, for sake of argument, that you have just successfully proven evolution false. Please tell me why genetic variance in a population over time isn't as good an explanation as “An intelligent mind changed the DNA”. Explain to me how this hypothetical God is going around altering organisms. Is it using sheer will power, some sort of telekinetic chemical control over our genes?

“People who are scared are concerned.”

Concerned and scared are too different things.

“it will bring creationism & God into peoples minds”

You do know that there are theists who believe in evolution right. I suppose that Satan got to their minds first? Statements like these make me think that you're just another fundamentalist hiding behind the guise that your version of creationism is more scientific sounding.

Remember that, according to you, this God isn't supernatural, so then how exactly is he getting into people's minds? And how, exactly, would teaching creationism in schools get this God into people's minds? Does your God have trouble getting into the minds of people? I thought he was powerful and intelligent far beyond us, yet it turns out to outsmart him all we had to do was not teach intelligent design?

“you would have no problem at all accepting I.D. and you know this”

I would have no problem accepting it IF they had evidence. I'm not taking the word of an alien race at face value, proper evidence and investigation into their claims is still needed. There are already people claiming that aliens created life on Earth, but they have little or no evidence, just as the God idea has little or no evidence.

“you can allow logic & reason to proceed”

Except that all logical arguments for the existence of Gods have failed or are flawed. You can pretend that it's just my emotional desire to disbelieve in God but that would be a lie. I wish there was a God, not the God of the Bible of course, but some sort of deity or higher power, unfortunately there's no evidence for any gods.

“is because it explains the universes fine tuning for life”

The Universe is not fine tuned for life. Such an assertion is stupid in the extreme. How tiny is the Earth compared to the cosmos? And how small a percentage of the Earth is suited for life?

“it only explains the complicated genomes that came afterward”

You still haven't told me how your God explains ANY of what you claim it did.

“The only reason you have to prohibit a all knowing thus all powerful life form from existing is your mind can't comprehend it, therefore you conclude the incomprehensible equates the super natural thus it can not exist.”

A God is just a man taken to the extreme heights of our imagination. Of course all knowing and all powerful cannot be comprehended, THAT'S THE POINT. They are exceptions, hypothetical impossibilities that are logically broken at their core. Something which is infinitely powerful has no power. When you posit infinity into the mix anything that can be measured, intelligence, time, or power, becomes meaningless.

“Why do you think science avoids evolutionary experiments with the single cell, because they know it would fail to build new functional proteins”

Bacteria that evolved to consume nylonase, look it up. Unless you think you're God came along and poofed them that ability using his mysterious abilities you have yet to (ie can't) explain.

“That said science agrees all major groups appear suddenly”

Suddenly in evolutionary terms is not the same suddenly you're suggesting.

Also I looked up your quote about horse evolution, way to take someone out of context. Of course all the links I could dig up are quote mined repostings of the same truncated quotation. Eventually I did find the original, penned in 1978. So you can pretend the fossil record hasn't been updated since 1978 or own up to the fact that you're just another quote miner in an endless sea of them. I can prove it, because the same discussion is talked about on the website of the Florida Museum of Natural history. The same claim, and lot's of quotes about scientists complaining about the horse transitions, is mentioned.

“That seems pretty clear. So, why have so many scientists been quoted as saying that something was wrong with the horse series?

They were actually complaining that the simple pictures are far too simple. It has in the past been shown as a "ladder of progress", a uniform and sure path from a starting point to an ending point. But in fact the horse family tree is enormous, and no one path through the tree is representative of all that went on”

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolu...


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Comment 2/2:

@toobsucker

Initially I thought I'd be able to keep this to 1 comment but no such luck, continuing:

“but they are not created from nothing by hocu pocus”

I never said they were created from nothing. However verbally commanding things to come into existence ex materia is still hocus pocus at it's most primitive. Unless you think this God is just so high tech that he's installed voice command technology on the entire Universe.

But then if that's the case you'd need an explanation as to where said technology came from, or where said ability came from. What is the origin of God's powers? Did this all powerful all knowing being just always existed in its present state, it never learned its abilities, it never gained its knowledge through education, and no training was involved in it's power. It simply has those things and exists?

“And why are aliens more plausible, is it because your mind can easily comprehend aliens?”

Well for one thing aliens have a plausibly explainable origin, are easy to test and prove and are consistent with what we observe about the Universe. There are inherent logical contradictions in an all powerful eternal being, but a finite physical biological being fits in fine with logic.

“I believe God was a product of abiogenesis before the universe & before entropy.”

Finally you've said something interesting. So then you DO believe in abiogenesis of a sort. By the way the second law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system, the Earth receives energy from the sun, along with geothermal energy, it's not a closed system and therefore isn't tending toward entropy.

Where exactly did your God exist before the Universe? HOW did a pre-Universe “environment” even exist in which this being could arise? Wouldn't this being, once entering our world to do its creating, become subject to entropy and begin dying? Like a timeless being entering time, would it not be subject to time then?

“If a block of cheese was all knowing, a block of cheese would be God.”

But that's just it, and you've agreed with me on this before, but something which is all knowing cannot be comprehended. Furthermore, as I explained earlier, the phrase all knowing has no meaning to us. If we came in contact with a being which SEEMED all knowing we would have trouble distinguishing it from a being that was all knowing.

Let's take the story of Jesus since everyone is familiar with it. Jesus had lot's of abilities most would term supernatural, he could walk on water, raise the dead and heal the sick. But those don't make him all powerful. The term has no meaning because its incomprehensible. The only way to tell if a being would be truly all powerful is to see it defeated by a more powerful being. To see it win against another powerful being wouldn't be enough. You see what I'm saying?

“The logical argument is, there is no lines of reasoning that prohibits a all knowing thus all powerful intelligence from existing, atheist put limitations on what life forms can & can not be, and they do so by philosophical reasons and not logical ones ”

Logic is an integral part of most philosophies. One of the logical reasons an all powerful being cannot exist is because of the inherently paradoxical contradictions. The classic version of which is “can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?”. This paradox calls into question the very possibility of an all powerful being.

Of course logic itself cannot restrict a being from actually existing. But the mere possibility of something is NOT A POSITIVE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF IT'S EXISTENCE.

“Do you understand in quantum mechanics, the observer can determine end results?”

It's one thing for the presence of an observer to change the outcome on the quantum level and another entirely for the observers desires to command reality on a macroscopic level (what you're suggesting).

The placebo affect has a psychological affect on the person applying it but not on the matter around them. Using the mind's power to affect ones own physiology is one thing, using mind powers to essentially WILL matter and energy to obey is pseudoscientific nonsense.

So thus far your best argument for your God boils down to this, please feel free to add or clarify:

Premise 1: Macro-evolution is false, thus leaving the need for an explanation

Premise 2: God cannot be ruled out as an absolute impossibility

Premise 3: Therefore God exists and is the best and most reasonable explanation for life

“One day science will discover the mechanisms and it will then be moved from the super natural realm to the natural realm simply by understanding and labeling it”

And until some evidence actually surfaces I reserve every right to be skeptical. Indeed such claims, especially if we want to believe them, deserve extra skepticism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

-self-correction, the bacteria eat nylon, nylonase is actually the name of the enzyme the bacteria evolved to digest the nylon.


toobsucker 5 years ago

1/4

“Lets make one thing clear, by "natural" you mean by the selection of a mindless undirected random process”

"CONSCIOUSLY undirected, however there are the laws of nature, which are, in general descriptions of how things behave and interact. Far from random the laws of physics have allowed us to predict and learn a great deal about the way reality works"

There is not a conscious direction with Darwinian evolution / naturalism. Its mechanisms are selection of the luckiest random copying errors. If you study chemical evolution you will find in every instance if the chemicals are left unto themselves, they will deteriorate and fall apart. It is the chemists that feed it an energy source and intelligently control its direction. Charles Thaxton & Dean Kenyon (both on youtube) are chemists that specialized in abiogenesis and explain this. Dean Kenyon wrote the text book “Biochemical Predestination" that was accepted by all of academia and explained how chemical evolution could have happened.

Kenyon eventually gave up (what he called the intellectual breaking point) on chemical evolution because of the problem of building conserved proteins without proteins already in existence. You need conserved proteins to build proteins. Google "the chicken & egg problem" with the single cell.

"DNA information requires a complex decoding machine, the ribosomes, but the instructions to build ribosomes are on the DNA. DNA needs enzymes to replicate, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA. DNA needs protection provided by the cell wall, but the cell wall is also encoded by the DNA. The answer is that none came first for all are required in DNA-based life. everything must happen at once or the entire system must come into being as one unit or it is worthless"

"The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult? to imagine." Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod

Science switched to RNA world, but it also has fallen apart. http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-de...

The simplest cell needs at least 50 molecular machines & 600 genes (google "Scientists Identify Genes Involved in Cell Division in Humans") just for basic cell division. The raw material of copying errors for evolution is not available until mitosis begins. So Darwinian evolution can not even begin until the cell has 600 conserved genes & 50 conserved machines (with multiple overlapping codes to instruct them) to make copies of the cell. And all these machines and genes are highly conserved (can not evolve), and for a good reason, if they were changed the system would become unstable and crash just as all intelligently designed systems would.

If a PCs source code or engineered factory was subjected to slight random changes to all of its parts, it would become unstable and eventually crash. This is the fatal dilemma for evolution, and the main argument for I.D.,

Any conserved (unable to evolve) functional element must be explained by naturalism. BY what mechanism did these very precise essential & unable to be changed elements get established?. And this is just the single cell. Every species has their own specific conserved proteins & systems of homeostasis that if changed, will make the species less fit and the biological machine will become unstable & crash.

This fatal dilemma flies right over the heads of evolutionists. Naturalists have established their belief in naturalism, NOT from evidence of naturalism, but from a lack of observable evidence of God & I.D.,Yet the similarities between the cells & intelligently engineered systems is glaringly obvious. Both have firmly established elements that are prevented from moving & needed for system stability

Bruce Alberts president of the NAS from 1993 to 2005 said in an article titled "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists." Biologist must incorporate design engineering principles in order to get to the next level of understanding. And we have the many quotes (which ill spare here) from biology on how biological system look as if designed. Both atheists Francis Crick & Richard Dawkins have said this.

You have all the evidence you need to believe in I.D., what prevents you from believing is your philosophical opinion of God.

=========

"Also I fail to see how the existence of God requires that one obey said God. Presumably you believe in this God yes? Have you ever disobeyed it? Than it's existence is irrelevant to whether or not humans can disobey it."

I totally agree. according to the bible 1/3 of the angles felt the same way. This is your choice, however its God choice to give eternal life, you must agree its not your inherent right to live forever. Also the bible does not teach men will be tormented forever. After their punishment they will cease to exist.

========

"Is it? Once again in order to posit this God you have to explain what exactly it is, where it is from and what MEANS it uses to affect change. You have yet to show any reason why an intelligent mind, let alone your God, is the most rational explanation."

I am not positing a God, I'M positing a intelligent designer. The identity of the designer is a problem for philosophy not science. Science is filled with liberal philosophers that have tainted their hypotheses with personal feelings and believe their philosophical opinions have a place in science. Science can only attempt to measure intelligence level of the designer.

=====

"Evolution is a very simple concept, one which obviously takes place. There is no doubt that each generation is different from the next genetically, these minor changes add up over thousands of generations. Are you suggesting that if we let a population reproduce in a shifting environment for, let's say, 80 million years, that at the end of that time we won't be looking at a different species?"

Yes evolution does take place, however we know the mechanisms are from the selection of pre-wriiten information & gene switching. The designer placed a calculating adaptation mechanism in the cells. One example many plants that are planted tightly together will decrees seed production, & plants that are sparsely planted will increase seed production. The evolution witnessed is a directed adaptation information system between the environment & the species. Barry Hall & Joseph Cairns have validated directed adaptation.

Species evolving new protein folds & chromosomes is not evident, yet Darwinian evolution can not take place unless they do


toobsucker 5 years ago

2/4

"Okay, for the sake of saving time and not having to type out more than one comment let's say, for sake of argument, that you have just successfully proven evolution false. Please tell me why genetic variance in a population over time isn't as good an explanation as “An intelligent mind changed the DNA”. Explain to me how this hypothetical God is going around altering organisms. Is it using sheer will power, some sort of telekinetic chemical control over our genes?"

There are alleles frequencies & pre-written variants in all species (i.e. finch beaks & lizard heads) . These are the evolve-able elements. The problem is the naturalists in science completely ignore the vast majority of the genome that can not evolve, and only focus on the elements that were designed to produce variants. The vast majority of the genome is frozen to evolutionary mechanisms, this is fatal to naturalism / atheistic evolution and never addressed.

======

"Remember that, according to you, this God isn't supernatural, so then how exactly is he getting into people's minds? And how, exactly, would teaching creationism in schools get this God into people's minds?"

Your mind & brain are two separate things. Your mind exists in another dimension, anything that also exists in that dimension can influence it. Quantum entanglement proves a unseen & undetectable connection does exist. Google "Phantom DNA", there is a vast undetectable unseen reality that science is completely unaware of.

======

"There are already people claiming that aliens created life on Earth, but they have little or no evidence, just as the God idea has little or no evidence."

They have more evidence than naturalism does. Science practices intelligent design, albeit crudely. A mind has proven the ability to specifically arrange DNA sequences. Chemical reactions don't even come close.

=====

"I wish there was a God, not the God of the Bible of course, but some sort of deity or higher power, unfortunately there's no evidence for any gods"

There is no visible evidence of God, but evidence for creation is clearly obvious to me and most people. Life is staggeringly complex , beautiful & valuable. If I throw a vial of DNA off a bridge you will say good throw, however if I encapsulate that same DNA in cell with protein building machines and arrange the sequences just right and allow it grow to two foot tall and then throw it off a bridge, you would jump right in after it to save its life. That screams of intelligent design.

=====

"The Universe is not fine tuned for life. Such an assertion is stupid in the extreme. How tiny is the Earth compared to the cosmos? . And how small a percentage of the Earth is suited for life?"

Not even close to the truth. Even the atheists in science do not agree with you

God or a Multiverse? http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showart...

"This choice has provoked anxious comment in the pages of this week's New Scientist. It follows an article in Discover magazine, in which science writer Tim Folger quoted cosmologist Bernard Carr: "If you don't want? God, you'd better have a multiverse."

"Even strongly atheistic physicists seem? to believe the choice is unavoidable. Steven Weinberg, the closest physics comes to a Richard Dawkins, told the eminent biologist: "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."

====

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan" Nobel laureate Arno Penzias

"The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is "something behind it all" is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists..," Paul Davies

"This is a very special universe:? it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all....Some scientists argue that, Well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right. Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate. It assumes that there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that our was planned, and that is why it has come out so specially." Charles Hard Townes, Nobel Prize in Physics UC Berkeley

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it." Boslough, Hawking's Universe, 121.

====

Why do you think the atheists in science have turned to a unfalsifiable multiverse hypothesis?, because the fine tuning is incredibly precise. Watch atheist physicist Leonard Susskind talk about how finely tuned the cosmological constant is. (1 10/120) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw

Atheist mathematician & astronomer Frederick Hoyle became a theist because of the fine tuning


toobsucker 5 years ago

3/4

“it only explains the complicated genomes that came afterward”

"You still haven't told me how your God explains ANY of what you claim it did."

Your not getting this because you don't want to get it. Your happier with believing in no God, therefore your feelings control your perceptions. A sentient calculating mind is the best explanation for the cells existence. A mind is always the best explanation for complex conserved information systems. Because the cell contains complex conserved information systems, I.D. logically concludes a mind existed before the earth did and created the cell.

I.D. uses deductive logic that is always accurate, science uses inductive logic that is not always accurate.

=======

"A God is just a man taken to the extreme heights of our imagination. Of course all knowing and all powerful cannot be comprehended, THAT'S THE POINT. They are exceptions, hypothetical impossibilities that are logically broken at their core. Something which is infinitely powerful has no power. When you posit infinity into the mix anything that can be measured, intelligence, time, or power, becomes meaningless."

Your reasoning is deeply flawed.

I can very easily comprehend a being existing that makes me look like an amoeba in comparison. I fully understand by comparing myself to vastly smaller life, that vastly larger life can also exist. If you could free your mind from your emotional presuppositions you would also see it.

You claim a all knowing being is a "hypothetical impossibility" yet have not explained why. You also do not understand all knowing & all powerful does not equate unlimited. All knowing only means you know all there is to know, and your power is limited to all the power available.

A God would have limitations, in fact the bible says of God "he can do above and beyond all we can ever ask or think", and that statement puts limitations on him but he is not limited by our requests or imagination. This statement of yours

"Something which is infinitely powerful has no power. When you posit infinity into the mix anything that can be measured, intelligence, time, or power, becomes meaningless."

Proves your decisions are emotionally based. "infinitely powerful has no power" make no sense at all. The brick wall you keep hitting is with your inability to comprehend a all encompassing intelligence. Because of this God becomes meaningless to you. And you misinterpret your inability to comprehend God as logic & reason telling you he does not exist.

Logic can not limit the size / intelligence level of a mind

=====

"Bacteria that evolved to consume nylonase, look it up. Unless you think you're God came along and poofed them that ability using his mysterious abilities you have yet to (ie can't) explain."

Yes they did, in fact there are many example like this, but if you study them they are not random at all, they happen billions of time faster than if randomness was the cause. This is a calculating adaptation mechanism that figures out how to keep the organism alive with the resources available. This is not Darwinian evolution because the no protein folds were created.

Evolution requires morphology via new functional protein folds, this is the only evidence for Darwinian evolution and this type of change is never observed

=====

"Also I looked up your quote about horse evolution, way to take someone out of context"

The fossil record can never prove new protein folds were created. Evolution requires evidence at the molecular level that biological system can make this transition in proteins. if you study molecular biology you will find the UCE prove the transition needed by Darwinian evolution can not be made. I told you I believe God created the families with many variations. We have horses the size of dogs, they still have the same conserved sequences as all the other horses.

Also phenotypic plasticity can create slight changes in a species appearance with no changes to the protein coding sequences. This is why the fossil record can no longer be used. Its only at the molecular level that can prove these tightly regulated systems can radically changed

======

"I never said they were created from nothing. However verbally commanding things to come into existence ex materia is still hocus pocus at it's most primitive. Unless you think this God is just so high tech that he's installed voice command technology on the entire Universe"

I told you, look up "Phantom DNA" information can be very simply infused / transferred from one dimension to another. You are coming to conclusions based on your inability to understand & comprehend. Remember a singled cell organism would have the same difficult time grasping our technology. You need to shed your narrow blinders and expand your thinking

=======

"Did this all powerful all knowing being just always existed in its present state, it never learned its abilities, it never gained its knowledge through education, and no training was involved in it's power. It simply has those things and exists?"

I told you I believe God was a product of abiogenesis and "evolution". However the evolution was a self directed evolution from a conscious level. The fact is any life that can never die must eventually become all knowing & all powerful. If eternal energy can be said to exist (and it can) then God must exist.


toobsucker 5 years ago

4/4

"Well for one thing aliens have a plausibly explainable origin, are easy to test and prove and are consistent with what we observe about the Universe. There are inherent logical contradictions in an all powerful eternal being, but a finite physical biological being fits in fine with logic"

Incorrect the single cell does not even have a plausible explanation. Chris Mckay said in 2011 space seeding the first cells is becoming more acceptable in science, this is because natural abiogenesis of the cell is becoming more foolish

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-de...

====

"By the way the second law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system, the Earth receives energy from the sun, along with geothermal energy, it's not a closed system and therefore isn't tending toward entropy'

Energy alone does not increase order. Subject any system with raw energy without the mechanisms to harness & direct it and the energy will destroy the system. The cells need complex machines made from conserved (unable to evolve) proteins for photosynthesis to take place. Without photosynthesis the suns energy would destroy the chemicals in a primordial soup. Which leads to another problem for naturalism, the half lives of the chemical in the primordial soup

Cytosine- half-life of 19 days at 100 °C & 200 years at 37 °C

Adenine-half-life of 80 years at 37°C, & 12 years at 100 °C

Cyanoacetaldehyde-half life 31 years at 30 °C

Cyanoacetylene- half life 11 days at 30 °C

Guanine- half life 1 year, at 100 °C

Uracil -half life 12 years, at 100 °C

====

"Where exactly did your God exist before the Universe? HOW did a pre-Universe “environment” even exist in which this being could arise? Wouldn't this being, once entering our world to do its creating, become subject to entropy and begin dying? Like a timeless being entering time, would it not be subject to time then?"

No one knows anything about "before the BB" all we know is energy can not be created or destroyed, therefore we must conclude it existed eternally in some form without entropy. I believe a mind / awareness (I think therefore I am) arose in the eternal energy and became all powerful because he could not cease to exist. Entropy is not eternal therefore it was created, and the creator would not be subject to entropy unless the energy he is made of is also subject to entropy. And a all knowing being would have enough sense not to kill himself subjecting himself to entropy

I understand this has no evidence, but neither does the multiverse, and make more sense than a multiverse does

====

"as I explained earlier, the phrase all knowing has no meaning to us. If we came in contact with a being which SEEMED all knowing we would have trouble distinguishing it from a being that was all knowing."

Like saying how do we distinguish something that looks like a duck vs a real duck. You realize the amount of energy in the sun is minute compared to all the energy in the universe, the suns energy is far from all powerful, yet if you were in the presence of a life form with the same energy (not heat) of the sun, you could not stand in his presence. You reject a creator for one main reason, the "religious baggage"

======

"One of the logical reasons an all powerful being cannot exist is because of the inherently paradoxical contradictions. The classic version of which is “can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?”. This paradox calls into question the very possibility of an all powerful being."

As I said all powerful does not equate no limits in power. It only means all the power that is available. Just as all knowing only means everything there is to know. Both power and knowledge have limitations, but their limitations are beyond our imaginations.

=====

"It's one thing for the presence of an observer to change the outcome on the quantum level and another entirely for the observers desires to command reality on a macroscopic level (what you're suggesting)."

Only because of the weakness on the mind, I believe a stronger mind could manipulate and control the elements. But the point is still made, there is a undeniable connection and influence between the mind (not brain) and the quantum level.

===

"The placebo affect has a psychological affect on the person applying it but not on the matter around them. Using the mind's power to affect ones own physiology is one thing, using mind powers to essentially WILL matter and energy to obey is pseudoscientific nonsense."

I disagree the mind can only effect the elements in its own body,

"Can Mind Affect Matter Via Active Information?" Basil J. Hiley, Birkbeck College. University of London,

And so do quantum physicists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Once a connection & influence between the mind and matter is established, the limitations are all speculative.

=======

"So thus far your best argument for your God boils down to this, please feel free to add or clarify:

Premise 1: Macro-evolution is false, thus leaving the need for an explanation

Premise 2: God cannot be ruled out as an absolute impossibility

Premise 3: Therefore God exists and is the best and most reasonable explanation for life"

No

Premise 1: The complicated cell & species have functional elements that can not be changed, thus ruling they evolved.

Premise 2: Life with vastly different attributes exist, there is no reason to prohibit (like atheism does) a God like intelligence

Premise 3: Therefore God / designer could exist because a mind (that we know can exist) is the best explanation for the cells functional conserved elements .

========

"And until some evidence actually surfaces I reserve every right to be skeptical. Indeed such claims, especially if we want to believe them, deserve extra skepticism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I agree extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. , however another life existing with a vastly superior intelligence is not an extraordinary claim. Chemical reactions creating the complicated cell with multiple overlapping information systems is an extraordinary claim, yet you believe it.


toobsucker 5 years ago

Correction

Premise 1: The complicated cell & species have functional elements that can not be changed, thus ruling OUT they evolved.


Rad Man 5 years ago

toobsucker, I couldn't read all that, but did catch the last bit.

Your Premise 1: This kind of logic is only fooling the people looking for an argument to justify the existence of God in the face of everything science shows us. Just because UCE have not evolved in 85 million years does not mean they didn’t evolve to the current state. Just because the UCE don’t evolve does not mean the rest of DNA cannot evolve. You have admitted that humans adapt to our environment given time. Skin color, hair, length of limbs and digestive system adapt (evolve) to our environment. Humans aren’t alone in this ability to adapt. The polar bear adapted to the white snow through natural selection. All humans outside Africa have Neanderthal DNA. Neanderthal looked vastly different than us. They became adults much faster. They had brain very different than ours, yet we were able to produce offspring together. The only way this could happen we came from the same hominoid and evolved apart.

Your Premise 2: Life with vastly different attributes do exist. There is a reason to prohibit a God like intelligence. We know of no life form like a God. There is no evidence of a God. There is no life form that has always been here and always has been here, and was created by no one. You want other to believe that all he wants us to do is believe he exists to get eternal life and if we don’t we get punished and we no longer exist. God is supposed to be all knowing and all-powerful, but he created an imperfect world. You are just dangling a carrot with this eternal life thing. Following people like you would put us back into the dark ages.

Your Premise 3: A God / designer is not the best explanation for the cells functional conserved elements. You just want it to be. I want it to be as well. I’d kind of like eternal life, but none exists. Therefore God is not an explanation for UCE’s. If you just asked for money to research UCE’s and how they pertain to God, you’d be just like a televangelist, stealing money from the weak minded. The weak minding are the only people who are listening to your message.


toobsucker 5 years ago

"Your Premise 1: This kind of logic is only fooling the people looking for an argument to justify the existence of God in the face of everything science shows us. Just because UCE have not evolved in 85 million years does not mean they didn’t evolve to the current state"

How do you know I'M fooling people?, since you have no idea what life forms do or do not exist in the universe, how do you know your not fooling yourself with hopeful imaginations a designer does not exist and the UCE were at one time subject to evolution.?

Do you understand if parts of the genome are proven unable to evolve (which they are), this destroys atheistic evolution. Naturalism requires 100% of the proteins in biological system to be subject to evolutionary change, or the cells & genome could never be slowly built.

Do you understand making claims the conserved elements were at onetime subject to evolutionary change, but for some unknown reason today they are not, has no place in a valid scientific theory. Unless you can demonstrate the conserved elements can be changed by natural mechanism, you do not have a valid theory of evolution, you have a unsubstantiated speculation of evolution.

You are guilty of doing exactly what you claim I.D. does. Evolutionists say I.D.ers put an imaginary God that can not be observed to fill in the gaps in a theory, yet you do the exact same thing by putting an imaginary mechanism that can not be observed to change the UCE, and then another imaginary mechanism to magically disengage the UCE from evolutionary mechanism after they become functional.

The atheists can fool most of the ignorant public by calling the unable to evolve elements "conserved" , but the informed intelligent design proponents will not let them get away with it.

I have no idea where your getting 85my from. UCE are observed in the oldest known life forms, and all molecular machines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC47604/

An accuracy center in the ribosome conserved over 2 billion years.

"We have introduced into S28 of yeast the same amino acid substitutions that led to the original streptomycin-resistant mutations in E. coli. We find that they have a profound effect on the accuracy of translation and interact with SUP44 and SUP46, just as predicted from the E. coli model. Thus, the interplay of these three proteins to provide the optimal level of accuracy of translation has been conserved during the 2 billion years of? evolution that separate E. coli from S. cerevisiae"

===

http://jb.asm.org/content/188/21/7700.full

Novel Conserved Assembly Factor of the Bacterial Flagellum

"The motility of most bacterial species depends on the proper function of the flagellar apparatus. At least 50 proteins are required for its assembly and function"

In summary, (i) TP0658/CJ1075 mutants have a motility defect (Fig. 3) (10), (ii) TP0658/yviF are located in flagellar operons, (iii) TP0658/yviF/CJ1075/HP1154/HP13­77 bind to flagellin (18; R. Finley, unpublished data), (iv) both TP0658 and FliS bind to the C-terminal part of flagellin which is implicated in polymerization, and (v) TP0658/yviF stabilizes flagellin. TP0658 and its function thus seems to be widely conserved in bacteria"

UCE are 3.5 billion years old in cyanobacteria

I could go on & on with reams of information about conserved (can not evolve) elements in all species, but there is no point. The fact is unable to evolve elements in the genome falsify a theory that predicts all elements slowly changed over time. Your just to brainwashed in your dogmatic religion of naturalism to understand this. And your ego will not let you be wrong

========

"You have admitted that humans adapt to our environment given time. Skin color, hair, length of limbs and digestive system adapt (evolve) to our environment. Humans aren’t alone in this ability to adapt."

Yes the selection of pre-written variations exist, and the environment does influence what information will be selected for. These are the evolve-able elements in the genome. Most of the genome and proteins are not subject to evolutionary change, this is your problem. You focus on the few elements that produce minor changes, but ignore most of the rest of the genome & proteins that can not evolve.

Atheistic evolution must start with chemical reactions & no proteins, and produce billions of conserved (unable to evolve) proteins. wake up and smell the coffee.

=======

"All humans outside Africa have Neanderthal DNA."

And where exactly did you get that from?

Neanderthals did exist, they were a pre-adamic race that existed before Adam & Eve. Solomon spoke of the pre-adamic races in Ecc. However humans today do not have neanderthal DNA, unless this is a recent discovery

====

"Your Premise 2: Life with vastly different attributes do exist. There is a reason to prohibit a God like intelligence. We know of no life form like a God. There is no evidence of a God."

We know of no life forms AT ALL beyond planet earth, therefor under your logic & reason they can not exist. Logical inference do not support your position

=====

"There is no life form that has always been here and always has been here, and was created by no one."

Tell me exactly how is it you know this?. since you have no idea everything that exists in our own solar system, yet you arrogantly assert you know what life forms do and do not exist throughout the entire universe.

You confuses your personal philosophies as logic & reason. Critical thinking has no reason to regulate a life forms attributes, only philosophy does

Fact: within our space time continuum the law of bio-genesis (life only comes from life) is never broken except in the naturalists imagination. Theists have an indisputable law on their side, atheists break this law without evidence

=====

"Your Premise 3: A God / designer is not the best explanation for the cells functional conserved elements. You just want it to be. I want it to be as well."

That means nothing in a debate. Making the clam X is not true without explaining how & why is meaningless.

All intelligently designed systems have UCE, PC source codes, buildings infrastructure and machinery, etc..There is not one intelligently designed system that does not have UCE

This is because its impossible to have a functional system without elements that can not move, they are essential for system stability. The cell is littered with elements that can not be changed via any evolutionary mechanism.

Why do you think evolutionists start their theory after the conserved elements are already firmly established?. because its impossible to have a valid theory that predicts 100% system change. You must have UCE to stabilize the system and science knows this. This is why atheistic evolution can never be a valid theory, it can not have UCE to begin the theory with, and without UCE there can be no system stability


Rad Man 5 years ago

Toobsucker:

"Neanderthals did exist, they were a pre-adamic race that existed before Adam & Eve. Solomon spoke of the pre-adamic races in Ecc. However humans today do not have neanderthal DNA, unless this is a recent discovery."

Well if it says so in the bible it must be true RIGHT.

It is a new discovery. Do your own google search it you want or just click below.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/060510/full/news.2...

http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-human-...

I'll get to the rest later...


Rad Man 5 years ago

Toobsucker;

Your Premise 2. "Yet you arrogantly assert you know what life forms do and do not exist throughout the entire universe." Oh that's not what you are doing. You arrogantly assert there is a god. You have no evidence of a god. The only evidence is a 2 thousand year old book that has been falsified over and over. Lets not get into that. You assert there is a god while science tries to ascertain the origin of life. If we left science to christians we would still think the earth was the centre of the universe.

Your Premise 3: That's not what biologist and current science think. They don't have an agenda. You do. You see, current science is experimenting with neutrinos and may prove Einstein in some way wrong (neutrinos may travel faster than light). Which would change the way we think about the universe. Science is not afraid of change. They look for change. The same will happen with biology and evolution when they find something that does not fit within the framework. They have not found it yet and neither have you.


toobsucker 5 years ago

"It is a new discovery. Do your own google search it you want or just click below"

It is possible there is, the bible speaks of Cain being worried about the other people in the land that would kill him.

But I know how science works, science starts with a foundation of common decent and build around it. Science may see a few similar sequences and assume common decent because they are trying to prove the theory, not disprove it as you like to believe.

Similar sequences mean nothing.

Regulation of Transcription and Gene Expression in Eukaryotes: By: Theresa Phillips, Ph.D.

"Many eukaryotic species carry genes with the same? sequences as other plants and animals. In addition, the same DNA sequences (not the same proteins) are found within all of an organism's diploid, nucleated cells.."

Humans share the same sequences as some plants do. So similar sequences prove nothing

=====

"Your Premise 2. "Yet you arrogantly assert you know what life forms do and do not exist throughout the entire universe." Oh that's not what you are doing. You arrogantly assert there is a god. You have no evidence of a god."

The indirect evidence for God is enormous. Starting at the complex cell, or at the complex universe, the evidence for a vastly superior intelligence is clear to any objective critical thinker.

That said my points were not to prove God existence but to prove the evidence for intelligent design should be obvious and the evidence against abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution should be obvious.

I assert the cell was intelligently designed because I know there can be only two possibilities for the cells existence. The cell either came about by mindless chemical reactions and luck or it came about by a mind with the intent to create life.

When I compare the cell to intelligently designed systems the similarities of glaringly obvious. I also know its impossible for constant random undirected chemical reactions to create conserved protein machines with coded languages to direct them.

Conserved (can not be changed) DNA sequences hold the information for building over 300 molecular machines in the cell, yet the theory of evolution has absolutely no explanation for how the "can not evolve" protein machines, and the coded information systems that direct the process can come about.

Intelligent design has an explanation, its a mind. And science is verifying a mind is a fully capable mechanism in changing the conserved DNA sequences. Evolution has no testable mechanism.

Therefore the objective view is in favor of I.D. , and this is my only argument. Once I.D. is established as a valid hypothesis (which it will), I have no doubt in the secrecy of peoples minds, God will be the most obvious candidate for the identity of the designer.

However science its self has no business addressing the philosophical question of God existence. Their business is only to address how & why things work the way they do. Science is terrified if they admit the cell looks designed, they will then be forced to entertain the identity of the designer, when in fact the identity of the designer has no place in science.

=====

"Your Premise 3: That's not what biologist and current science think. They don't have an agenda. You do."

Wrong again, science admits they have a naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) agenda

"Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."

(Richard E. Dickerson [evolutionist scientist]: "The Game of Science." Perspectives on Science and Faith, (Volume 44, June 1992), p. 137

==

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary,? that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -

Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and billions of demons', The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31

===

"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism."

Todd, Scott C. [Department of Biology, Kansas State University, USA], "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate," Nature, Vol. 401, 30 September 1999, p.423)

====

"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." Leonard Susskind

."Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is? characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data" Richard Lewontin

"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman

"No myth deserves a more emphatic death than the idea that science? is an inherently impartial and objective enterprise." (Gould, Science in the Twentieth Century, 1978, p344)

===

"Science is not afraid of change. They look for change'

They look for change except when it comes to Darwinian evolution. Every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified , and instead of falsifying the theory as they should, they just quickly modify it to prevent falsification.

"Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting? elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise."

Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78, 1979 p.574


Rad Man 5 years ago

Toobsucker :

"However science its self has no business addressing the philosophical question of God existence. Their business is only to address how & why things work the way they do."

You are finally correct about something. But, what your not getting is it works in reverse as well. Religion has no place in science. That's why ID can not be taught in science class. It's not science. Your agenda is to put religion (christianity) into science class. We should learn from the dark ages.


Rad Man 5 years ago

Toobsucker :

"It is possible there is, the bible speaks of Cain being worried about the other people in the land that would kill him." "Humans share the same sequences as some plants do. So similar sequences prove nothing."

Did you just say it's possible because the bible says so? And then similar sequences prove nothing? Except Africans don't contain these sequences. You are ignoring the science again and only validating the science if it fits your religious views. I bet you expect muslims and jews to respect your separation of church and state. You should respect it as well.


toobsucker 5 years ago

"Religion has no place in science. That's why ID can not be taught in science class. It's not science. Your agenda is to put religion (christianity) into science class. We should learn from the dark ages."

How many times must I reiterate I.D. does not equate religion. The atheists Raealians (A cult that believes aliens created us) believe in I.D.

Eventually science will be forced to entertain I.D. because they will find out within 10 years Darwinian evolution is impossible. The stage is already being set for aliens to be the designer.

=====

"Did you just say it's possible because the bible says so? And then similar sequences prove nothing? Except Africans don't contain these sequences. You are ignoring the science again and only validating the science if it fits your religious views. I bet you expect muslims and jews to respect your separation of church and state. You should respect it as well."

I do respect it, I never once said I agreed with creationism being taught in science class. That is a job for the clergy and philosophers. Your fear I.D. because if its established you then have no reasons left to reject Gods existence.

Also the MRCA supports the biblical creation story

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/fu...

"Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans"

Douglas L. T. Rohde1, Steve Olson2 & Joseph T. Chang3

"These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand (3000) years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors"

All the scientific evidence points to the MRCA existing just 3000 years ago. This is why science is terrified of I.D., the evidence strongly points to the biblical account of it.


toobsucker 5 years ago

"However science its self has no business addressing the philosophical question of God existence. Their business is only to address how & why things work the way they do."

"You are finally correct about something. But, what your not getting is it works in reverse as well."

===

What your not getting is science has already taken an atheistic philosophical position my affirming naturalism at all costs without having the slightest bit of evidence natural cell evolution is possible.

Naturalism is the atheists religion, selection of the luckiest randomness is your creator, Darwinian evolution is your doctrine, Dawkins is your high priest, and you are your own god.

And there is no plausible way for the theory to explain the "conserved elements" other than the ones that did not "just happen" to get lucky and freeze were eliminated by selection.

But selection explains nothing. It only explains how the unlucky are removed and the lucky survived. Blind random luck is evolutions explanation for how ow life arose, and selection is mechanism that sorts the lucky from the unlucky.

That's ALL selection can do, nothing more. The theory of evolution is total random luck with a mechanism (N.S.) to sort the degrees of luck.

By affirming naturalism without any evidence , science in effect is affirming the atheists religion without evidence.

Michael Ruse said in a speech (Saturday, February 13, 1993) Science by affirming naturalism, assumes the philosophical position of atheism. He understands saying "God does not exist" is just as much a philosophical position as "God does exist"


Rad Man 5 years ago

Toobsucker:

"I do respect it, I never once said I agreed with creationism being taught in science class. That is a job for the clergy and philosophers. Your fear I.D. because if its established you then have no reasons left to reject Gods existence."

It's interesting that you say I.D. has nothing to do with religion and then you say that I fear I.D. because I will have no reason to reject God. Don't tell me I.D. has nothing to do with religion. I don't fear I.D. at all. Dawkins is not my high priest. I have never even read on of his books. I don't reject god. I just no longer believe in his existence. In the U.S.A you have a separation between church and state. It was put there to stop people like you from turning your country into an Iran. Your bible was used to keep slaves longer than any other nation. Don't tell me you don't have an agenda.


lone77star profile image

lone77star 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

@Titen-Sxull, I like some of the points you make. Honest!

I agree that most Christians (at least of those I met, and according to all the surveys I've seen) don't believe in the "creationist" take of things. Creation, yes, but anti-evolution, 6000-year-old-universe, no.

Looks as though your Hub has turned into a forum. That rocks!

@Rad Man, good points, too. I.D. seems to be a cover for religious dogma -- thinly veiled, at that.

However, I disagree that the Bible was used to keep slaves. Some may have pointed to certain misconstrued verses, but behind their pointing was plain old ego (selfishness and greed). Today, those same folks might be atheists and using other arguments to bluster their way into greed-friendly legislation, like bankers and pharmaceutical company execs.

Lovely agendas those.

And @Titen-Sxull, cute cartoons, but God is not Homo sapiens.


Rad Man 5 years ago

lone77star, what I mean is the bible was used to convince people that slavery was Okay.

Have a glance at http://rad-man.hubpages.com/hub/Do-we-get-our-mora...

It's no coincidence the most fundamental christian part of the world (southern states) was the last to free slaves.

I'm not sure I like how you linked atheists with greedy bankers and big business. I'm not sure you can connect atheist with low morals. Of the 16% of atheist that make up the USA less then 1% make there way into prison. So either atheists or more moral then there counterparts or they are smarter and don't get caught. ;-)


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@lone77star

Thanks for dropping by. It appears I have my work cut out for me, I'm way behind on responding to comments. I've got catching up to do apparently.

The cartoons are there to break up the monotony of just having a wall of text, also humor helps make a point at times, other times its just there for a laugh.


toobsucker 5 years ago

"It appears I have my work cut out for me, I'm way behind on responding to comments. I've got catching up to do apparently."

Take your time with me, I am in no rush


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@toobsucker

I apologize that it's taken me this long but between business in my own life and the considerable length of your response I thought it best to wait until I could do a full response to the entire thing. However I'm going to try to keep it to 2 comments,

"So Darwinian evolution can not even begin until the cell has 600 conserved genes & 50 conserved machines (with multiple overlapping codes to instruct them) to make copies of the cell."

So then are you agreeing that after that point Darwinian evolution can begin? Because if you're conceding evolution as a reality and merely denying abiogenesis than I fail to see the point of a God being interjected here. I have no problem with you denying abiogenesis to insert your God there, other than my objection to the God of the Gaps fallacy being employed to do so.

"This is the fatal dilemma for evolution, and the main argument for I.D."

Then you're entire argument is fallacious. You don't make a positive argument FOR something by making an argument against something else unless there are only two options. The number of different variables and concepts that come into play when dealing with the origin of life are staggering.

"You have all the evidence you need to believe in I.D., what prevents you from believing is your philosophical opinion of God."

You're argument is similar to those made by deists about a cosmic watchmaker. Many things in nature have often been compared to machines due to the complexity of the interaction of natural forces and chemical elements. Such an analogy does not need to be taken literally. You may as well be parroting Ray Comforts "a painting is evidence of a painter" argument. There are many things in nature which bear the appearance of design (Giant's Causeway is a great example) which we know are natural. The human mind seeks patterns and often attaches agency to nearly everything it comes in contact with. A creaking floorboard in the night becomes a ghost, a volanic eruption has to be the product of an angry god who got one too few virgin sacrifices and life itself, complex and mysterious, must also be "explained" by a God.

The issue is that a God explains nothing. Even when pressed for an answer about this God you give nothing intelligible, nothing that makes sense. A God who is outside time, born of some abiogenic process, according to you, BEFORE THE UNIVERSE. So a God of infinite intelligence and complexity can come into being via abiogenesis BUT life on Earth, which must therefore be less complex, cannot?

"The evolution witnessed is a directed adaptation information system between the environment & the species"

But the environment is not intelligent, is it? I've already brought up that environmental pressures can direct evolution and thus evolution isn't merely random, it can be directed. It can also be intelligently directed, for instance the way humans have directed the evolution of Dogs. But we don't see any evidence of that historically in the past, we see natural processes guiding evolution, not some higher consciousness.

"Your mind exists in another dimension"

No. The mind exists in the brain. This is why dead men tell no tales, because when the brain is dead the person is dead. Positing some dimension of consciousness is new age pseudoscience at best. As for Phantom DNA it too is rooted in new age beliefs though I understand how such an idea could be repurposed to suit any spiritualistic agenda from reincarnation and beyond.

"Life is staggeringly complex..."

So is a spiral galaxy, yet look how many of them there are, all explained by fairly simple gravitational forces.

"Even the atheists in science do not agree with you"

You're making an argument from authority that is not even indicative of everyone in authority. There is no scientific consensus on whether Earth was "fine-tuned" or not. As for the idea of a benevolent fine-tuner such a thought is absurd. The world is frought with peril. In fact the idea that the entire planet is trying to kill us is more true-to-reality than the "fine tuning" argument. Infectious disease, birth defects, natural disasters and a planet 75% covered by water. Even the terrain that is land is often tough terrain to live on, mountains, volcanoes, fault-lines, plains that are prone to tornados, places that get monsoons and hurricanes on a regular cycle, predatory animals that will eat you to survive. The list goes on and on. The claim that the Earth, let alone an unexplored Universe where we appear to be the only intelligent-life, is fine-tuned for life is dead in the water.

"Atheist mathematician & astronomer Frederick Hoyle became a theist because of the fine tuning"

Yes thanks, I'm aware that even some brilliant minds are theists, it doesn't bother me. At best such ideas lead one to become a deist, a believer in a deity which set things in motion but does not interact actively. I have generally no quarrel with deists. After all you don't see many deists going around preaching abstinence only or prohibiting gays from getting equal rights. Deists, in general, do not act irrationally based on their faith, rather they attempt to know the mind of God merely by studying nature. Such an idea is perfectly fine in my book even if I do not believe there is a God's fingerprints present in nature.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@toobsucker

Comment 2/2

"therefore your feelings control your perceptions."

Um... no. I suppose in general I am happier as an atheist but it's not a huge difference from when I was a pantheist. I was sort of a new age wanderer from a time, half-deist and half-pantheist depending on the mood I was in at the time. In those days yes it was my emotional state that drove my decisions about gods and what exactly I believed. I gave that up in pursuit of the truth and looked at it from a more logical and scientific standpoint.

"I.D. uses deductive logic that is always accurate"

There is nothing deductive about a God of the gaps argument, it's logically broken. Even if you sucessfully disprove evolution you haven't made a positive argument for intelligent design, you're merely left with a mystery.

" All knowing only means you know all there is to know, and your power is limited to all the power available."

That's irrelevant as the same logical instabilities arise. Only an equally knowledgable being can judge whether another being is all knowing. Human beings have no way of measuring whether a being is all knowing or just knows almost everything.

"Logic can not limit the size / intelligence level of a mind"

If a God has infinite intelligence than measuring its intelligence becomes impossible. Same if a God is merely all knowing. Of course I cannot comprehend something that is all knowing, NO ONE CAN. No human mind can quantify the intelligence of all knowing being because, as I said, if would be impossible to tell an all knowing being from one who knows almost everything or even one who simply knows an awful lot more than we do.

"The fossil record can never prove new protein folds were created."

Wha?

"Remember a singled cell organism would have the same difficult time grasping our technology"

What you're positing is unfalsifiable then, as it is so far beyond our comprehension as to be worthless as a hypothesis. Take for example the ending scene to the film MEN IN BLACK where the Universe is just a game of galactic marbles played by macroalien beings. Such a thing is so far beyond our ability to prove as to be reduced to a mere interesting hypothetical.

We would be unwise to take all our unanswered questions about life, the Universe, and everything and substitute a place-holder GOD into that gap. Because, as I tried to explain, that God explains nothing. You are replacing a question mark with an unsatisfying, unproven and arguably unfalsifiable argument and what's worse seemingly attempting to replace ALL question marks regarding the BIG QUESTIONS in life with this "answer."

"If eternal energy can be said to exist (and it can) then God must exist."

By what logic? You're assuming that said energy coaelsces into a mind without a body. If it's merely non-living energy there's no reason why it MUST at some point become a God, even if I were to grant you that entire argument it would not mean that such a being currently exists, it could be that it has not been long enough in the progression of said eternal energies for them to form a mind. Thus far we have yet to find a mind that exists without a physical construct of matter, even computerized artificial minds require, well, computers.

"I understand this has no evidence, but neither does the multiverse, and make more sense than a multiverse does"

Its debatable whether it makes more sense than the idea of a multiverse however neither idea strikes me as very appealing. I do not pretend to know enough about quantum physics or Big Bang cosmology to weigh in very heavily on scientific ideas about them. To paraphrase socrates sometimes the greatest wisdom is in admitting ignorance. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang, but the God hypothesis seems too simple and too illogical.

It seems to me however that if a God can come into existence on its own that the idea that life like ours, far less complex than an immaterial God, could also do it. So it seems a bit odd that you defend abiogenesis for your God while attacking scientific abiogenesis.

"Premise 3: Therefore God / designer could exist because a mind (that we know can exist) is the best explanation for the cells functional conserved elements ."

Merely because a God or a designer COULD exist does not make it the best explanation. I've yet to get a good answer as to what MEANS this God uses to create and as to why an all knowing God would create a system with so many inherent flaws and with so much suffering involved. The questions that the idea of an intelligent designer raise are many and unfortunately so much of it would be unfalsifiable or nigh impossible to quanitfy, observe, or prove in any way. The fact of the matter is that the ID hypothesis fails as an explanation.


toobsucker 5 years ago

@Titen-Sxull

My response it becoming a bit long, ill post Sat or Sun if get time


toobsucker 5 years ago

1/5

"So then are you agreeing that after that point Darwinian evolution can begin? Because if you're conceding evolution as a reality and merely denying abiogenesis than I fail to see the point of a God being interjected here"

You missed the point, which is naturalism (or atheistic evolution) can not start the theory with an unimaginably complex cell and multiple coded languages and conserved (unable to evolve) protein machines already firmly established, and still claim no intelligent designer is needed. That is a massive gaffe is logic & reason.

The cells possess multiple overlapping codes with multiple layers of error correction mechanisms to prevent changes to them. And for good reason, it is impossible to change (evolve) an information systems unless both the sending and receiving ends are aware of the change and agree on the new meaning.

Evolution requires constantly changing information systems if new organs & appendages are to evolve. This continual evolutionary change of the "species specific" conserved elements is not observed in biology or the fossil record. The fossil record stasis quotes are endless.

We have at least 40 different eye designs all with highly conserved proteins. It is impossible to evolve the proteins that make up one particular eye design into another different eye design without blinding the organism. Science claims the eye did evolve, but has never once tested the hypothesis by evolving the proteins in a eye while maintaining a fitness advantage.

Darwinian evolution could be falsified instantly if the experiments for evolving the specific proteins for each kingdom, phylum/division, class, order, family, genus, species were conducted. Evolutionary science knows what will happen, and this is why the tests for falsification are never done

Also the "primitive" single cell has no genetic variability to swap, the only source of genetic variability is the selection of random errors, and science is now well aware selection does not increase genome size. There are many quotes that state this, here are just a few.

"[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested." Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p.

1240.

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.”

Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28.

"... For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.” Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,”

Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

The problem for Darwinian evolution from a simple single cell should be obvious. Selection can not play a role in genome size increase & complexity, therefore unlike what the pseudo intellectuals liberal philosophers in science like Dawkins are telling people, Selection is not a mechanism that can be used by small genomes & proteins to build large complex genomes & proteins.

All new mechanisms (as discussed by the Altenberg 16) consist of swapping & mixing of currently written information. A primitive cell has no information to swap so must produce it strictly from random copying errors.

The ONLY reason why this theory has survived as long as it has, is because the "attack the theory" (or teach the controversy) dictated by the falsification method is not allowed to be applied to Darwinian evolution for obvious reasons, it would be falsified instantly and I.D. is the only other alternative

====

"This is the fatal dilemma for evolution, and the main argument for I.D."

"Then you're entire argument is fallacious. You don't make a positive argument FOR something by making an argument against something else unless there are only two options. The number of different variables and concepts that come into play when dealing with the origin of life are staggering."

There can be only two options for the origins of life, natural undirected forces or intelligent design by a mind. It is impossible for a third hypothesis to exist. And the reason I know this is because you will not be able to name one other valid hypothesis for the origins of life

When only two options exist, and you eliminate one of them, the other must win by default.

I.D. does not necessarily mean God was the designer but If abiogenesis & evolution is falsified, it absolutely was a result of a mind

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Arthur Conan Doyle


toobsucker 5 years ago

2/5

"There are many things in nature which bear the appearance of design (Giant's Causeway is a great example) which we know are natural. The human mind seeks patterns and often attaches agency to nearly everything it comes in contact with. A creaking floorboard in the night becomes a ghost, a volanic eruption has to be the product of an angry god who got one too few virgin sacrifices and life itself, complex and mysterious, must also be "explained" by a God."

I have never used patterns as evidence of design, no idea why you brought that up. And your other analogy can be tested to see if volcanic eruptions are caused by angry Gods, we know this is not true. I suggest you study the cells and the machines therein, many good videos on youtube.

The cells are now know to be "sentient calculating machines". Some good articles to read.

"A Third Way" by bacterial geneticist James Shapiro. http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html

Shapiro does not believe in intelligent design (YET) how ever he (as well as the Altenberg 16) has abandoned the neo-Darwinian synthesis because the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

He has another paper on the cells cognitive abilities

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053935

"Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology"

"....This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognise that even the smallest cells are sentient beings"

Bonnie Bassler has a good video on quorum sensing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA

Bacteria communicate with each other, they speak in multiple languages, they know when they are out numbered by enemy bacteria and they know when they are in the majority. When they detect they are in majority they mount attacks just as military leaders do.

The cells also possess a wireless GPS communication systems between themselves. The Primary cilium is the antenna

http://www.physorg.com/news148742058.html

"Primary cilium as cellular 'GPS system' crucial to wound repair"

There is such a plethora of recent information on the sophistication of the cells. Too much to post here. The more we learn about the cells the more difficult it is becoming to explain them by natural origins. The cells are true machines with highly conserved information systems to direct them. The similarities between the cells and our designed systems is obvious.

But the death nail in your theory , which you have yet to realize is, all these mechanisms that direct biological systems are highly conserved, meaning they are not subject to evolutionary change. And if they did change, the system would become unstable and crash, just as a PC program would crash if you "evolved" its source code or a factory would crash if you "evolved" its machines or infrastructure.

=====

"The issue is that a God explains nothing. Even when pressed for an answer about this God you give nothing intelligible, nothing that makes sense. A God who is outside time, born of some abiogenic process, according to you, BEFORE THE UNIVERSE. So a God of infinite intelligence and complexity can come into being via abiogenesis BUT life on Earth, which must therefore be less complex, cannot?"

The issue of a God like intelligence perfectly explains the conserved functional elements all throughout the universe and biological systems that are needed to remain conserved for system stability. Evolution has no explanation for conserved functional elements. How does a theory that requires 100% of the system to evolve, explain functional parts the system that can not be changed?.

You have yet to address this, and for good reason, evolutionary science has no explanation either.

And the reason why abiogenesis before the universe began is the most plausible, is because entropy would not exist then. entropy is the enemy of specific complexity, if God does not exist, the universe will eventually deteriorate, & useable energy, thus life will cease to exist. Without usable energy life can never arise. Before the BB, there would be no laws of thermodynamics and no entropy, therefore an eternity of usable energy has a far better chance at abiogenesis than a miniscule amount of time with the deterioration of the elements by entropy.

The half lives of the chemicals in a primordial soup is ridiculously short and the reason why is entropy destroys them. Any life enabling elements before the BB would not deteriorate, but be available for abiogenesis for all eternity. Abiogenesis before the BB is the only plausible way abiogenesis could have happened.

All abiogensis experiments fail miserably because entropy dictates any system left unto its self will deteriorate. This is a fact.

=====

"But the environment is not intelligent, is it? I've already brought up that environmental pressures can direct evolution and thus evolution isn't merely random, it can be directed. It can also be intelligently directed, for instance the way humans have directed the evolution of Dogs. But we don't see any evidence of that historically in the past, we see natural processes guiding evolution, not some higher consciousness."

No the environment is not "intelligent" The environment is directed by physics and natural forces. The biological machines have the ability to sense environmental changes and quickly adapt to it. This adaptation is clearly a directed change by a calculating mechanism. You do not realize atheistic evolution can not use directed evolution as evidence for naturalism, because atheistic evolution must explain how the complex sentient adaptation mechanisms can arise by natural means.

Dawkins understands this dilemma and this is why he knows he must reject a sentient calculating directed evolution, because he has no way to explain how the adaptation mechanisms naturally arose. Atheistic evolution lives/dies, stands/falls on the selection of randomness. If the selection of random changes is excluded from evolutionary theory, atheistic evolution dies because we know there are no know natural laws that can produce a sentient conserved cell

A mind is the only mechanism that can create a directed adaptation mechanism controlled by conserved codes and machines that carry out the process.


toobsucker 5 years ago

3/5

"Your mind exists in another dimension"

"No. The mind exists in the brain. This is why dead men tell no tales, because when the brain is dead the person is dead. Positing some dimension of consciousness is new age pseudoscience at best"

As I said the quantum observer proves you wrong, there is a connection between the mind and matter. Quantum entanglement also proves an unseen connection exists. We have evidence the unseen & undetectable exists. There is also a plethora of information coming from near death experiences (many on youtube) that confirm this. We have people (including atheists) that state they can see & hear what is

going on in the operating room as they float above their bodies. Several doctors have written books and become believers in the "spirit realm" after the testimonies.

So the NDE is either a massive conspiracy against naturalists by everyone that has a NDE, or its real. However I know you will look for any reason to reject the evidence. This is what the liberal mind does, it looks for reasons to reject/falsify the data. This is what falsification is all about, it looks for reasons to reject/doubt rather than reasons to accept/believe. Falsification came from the illogical liberal mind

of Popper

=====

"So is a spiral galaxy, yet look how many of them there are, all explained by fairly simple gravitational forces."

Coincidentally I was just watching a program on this subject on the cable science network. Science has no idea how galaxies are created. Science assumes black holes with gravitational forces do it. No scientists has ever observed a black hole or anything going into a black hole, so we don't even know if they even exist. All we know is there is a force (assumed to be a gravitational pull) in the center of a galaxy that seems to create them.

Secondly gravitational forces alone creating a myriad of extremely precise "happy accidents" that make life possible is hopeful foolishness. Why do you think the anthropic principle & multiverse was invented? because science knows its not rational to believe a one time explosion could created a conserved life sustaining universe machine. I could post many"bizarre coincidences" that make

life possible. Gravity has no ability to do this, hence the need for a multiverse & anthropic principle.

===

"There is no scientific consensus on whether Earth was "fine-tuned" or not."

Ok why don't you post all the references from the "universe is not fine tuned" scientists, and Ill post the references from the "universe is fine tuned" scientists and we will see where the majority opinions stand.

When science agrees with your atheistic position you claim it as valid proof, when science disagrees with your atheistic position you call is an argument from authority. I agree "authorities" are often wrong, however you have only two options. You either accept the argument from authority when it suits your position or you exercise faith the authorities are wrong. you have no other choice. In this instance you exercise faith all the fine tuning arguments are wrong.

Even Dawkins admits the fine tuning problem and hypothesizes about an unfalsifiable multiverse to explain it.

=====

"The claim that the Earth, let alone an unexplored Universe where we appear to be the only intelligent-life, is fine-tuned for life is dead in the water."

Your reasoning fails. You say "let alone an unexplored Universe where we appear to be the only intelligent-life"

The operative word there is unexplored. Do you grasp the size of the universe?. Do you understand we have not a clue what exists in the nearest galaxy?. We appear to be the only life just as it appears to microorganisms on a deserted island they are the only intelligent life forms. You have to be able to explore and evaluate the entire universe (and possible other dimensions) before saying with confidence "It appears" we are alone here.

We can have a debate on the fine tuning argument alone, you will lose by the words from the vast majority of evolutionary science its self. And you know this.

The elements trying to kill us are actually selecting out the weaker organisms from the breeding population. God knows what he is doing.

===

"Yes thanks, I'm aware that even some brilliant minds are theists, it doesn't bother me. At best such ideas lead one to become a deist, a believer in a deity which set things in motion but does not interact actively. I have generally no quarrel with deists. After all you don't see many deists going around preaching abstinence only or prohibiting gays from getting equal rights. Deists, in general, do not act irrationally based on their faith, rather they attempt to know the mind of God merely by studying nature. Such an idea is perfectly fine in my book even if I do not believe there is a God's fingerprints present in nature'

A deist is a theist that does not want to be told what to do, so he invents a God/designer that he does not have to answer to. Examine your reasoning, you said you have no quarrels with desists, and the reason is because desists posit a God/intelligent designer that lets you do what ever you want without repercussions.

Can't you see your emotional philosophical position here?. A God is only “rational idea” to you if its a deistic "hands off" God that does not set rules and punish people for their behavior. A God that sets rules is your stumbling block. You reject a theistic intelligent designer because you would have to obey & answer to him or be punished

Its philosophy that dictates reality to you. If all religions posited a deistic God that allowed all things without punishment your mind could believe in God immediately. And if a deistic God exists, there is no justice in the universe. If punishments & rewards do not exist, then it would be impossible to rectify the all injustices in the world. Hitler could never be punished and people that suffered unjustly could never be recompensed


toobsucker 5 years ago

4/5

"I.D. uses deductive logic that is always accurate"

"There is nothing deductive about a God of the gaps argument, it's logically broken. Even if you sucessfully disprove evolution you haven't made a positive argument for intelligent design, you're merely left with a mystery"

Read what I said. Intelligent design (Not God) uses deductive logic to prove its position. In deductive logic if your premise is true, your conclusion must be true

Premise- All apples are fruits

Premise- All fruits come from trees

Conclusion- I can deduce an apple came from a tree

Premise- All language systems come from a mind

Premise- The cells have multiple language systems

Conclusion- I can deduce the cells language systems came from a mind

Premise- All intelligently designed systems have elements that are prevented from moving

Premise- The cells have functional elements that are prevented from moving

Conclusion- I can deduce the cells were intelligently designed

And I can see you have not critically thought about the options available for the origins of the cell & species. To claim "if you successfully disprove evolution you haven't made a positive argument for intelligent design" proves have have given this little or no thought. No third option can exist. Its either I.D. or naturalism.

=====

"That's irrelevant as the same logical instabilities arise. Only an equally knowledgable being can judge whether another being is all knowing. Human beings have no way of measuring whether a being is all knowing or just knows almost everything"

I never said you had the ability to know if someone else is all knowing. My point was to point out an all knowing being can have limitations. Your failing to grasp the orders of magnitude that can exist. This is the main reason for your atheism, thinking on a big scale is incomprehensible to you

=======

"The fossil record can never prove new protein folds were created."

"Wha?"

You must first understand what is needed for evolution be take place. Look up “Levinthals paradox”. When new organs & appendages evolve, new protein folds must be created. The proteins that make up your limbs, liver, eyes, heart, brain etc.. must be precisely folded or they are rejected by the error correction mechanisms.

Darwinian evolution requires a constant change in protein folds as the organism morphs, the fossil record has no way of showing new protein folds can arise. Only molecular biology can. Now study protein misfolding (i.e. Darwinian evolution) and you will find out changing from one set of conserved proteins to another set of conserved proteins is never observed in biology

"Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees" Glazko G, Veeramachaneni V, Nei M, Maka?owski W.

So even though the primary structure of the protein coding sequences in DNA between humans & chimps have only a 1-3 % difference, 80% of the tertiary structure of those same proteins have different folds.

For a chimp to evolve into a human, he must slowly change the parameters of 80% of the tertiary structure his proteins. So the chimp must "misfold" 80% his proteins to evolve into a human.

=====

"What you're positing is unfalsifiable then, as it is so far beyond our comprehension as to be worthless as a hypothesis. Take for example the ending scene to the film MEN IN BLACK where the Universe is just a game of galactic marbles played by macroalien beings. Such a thing is so far beyond our ability to prove as to be reduced to a mere interesting hypothetical"

Logical inference give us the framework. Even though I can not comprehend Gods methods, I can use the observable inferences that microorganism can neither comprehend our methods, even though our methods are completely comprehensible to us. You seem to come to conclusions based on your limited ability to comprehend.

You need to understand critical thinking dictates there can be an endless supply of facts that are totally incomprehensible to your human mind. Just as there are many things that a monkey could never understand. And this is the problem with science & atheists , they believe everything in the universe should be understandable to the human mind thus explainable by the human mind, and attempt to force theories that fit within the framework of their understanding.

That said, intelligent design does not posit the incompressible, its posits a mind capable of building a cell, nothing more


toobsucker 5 years ago

5/5

"We would be unwise to take all our unanswered questions about life, the Universe, and everything and substitute a place-holder GOD into that gap. Because, as I tried to explain, that God explains nothing."

You keep repeating "God explains nothing" when in fact God explains everything. God / an intelligent designer explains the fixed elements that are needed to run the system just as an engineer explains a factory’s fixed framework that hold the building up and fixed machinery that keep the factory running.

Many in science are forced to entertain the unfalsifiable multiverse hypothesis just to explain the universe's fixed constants. From the constants in the universe all the way down to the cytoskeleton in the cell (and billions of places in between) we have fixed (unable to be moved) elements that must remain fixed or the system will become unstable & crash. You continually fail to understand highly precise fixed functional elements falsifies any theory that requires 100% system evolution.

The multiverse does not need to explain fixed functional elements, just as an innumerable amount possible factories existing has no need for an engineer. The one factory in an endless supply of them must produce at least one factory that has the proper infrastructure to keep the building stable and capable of running machines in them.

Atheist physicist Leonard Susskind believes in a unfalsifiable multiverse because of the fine tuning problem. The cosmological constant need to be set to one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (1 10/120) or life in the universe can not exist

Listen to Susskind describe the cosmological constant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw

"The fine tunings, how fine tuned are they. Most of them are one percent sort? of things. In other words if a thing is one percent different everything gets bad. And a physicist? could say maybe those are just luck. On the other hand this cosmological constant is tuned to one part in ten to the hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty decimal places. Nobody thinks that accidental. That is not a reasonable idea. That something is tuned to one hundred and twenty decimal places by accident. That's the

most extreme example of fine tuning" Atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind

There are only two ways fixed (unable to evolve) functional elements can arise, either by a lucky infinite possible arrangements of them, thus one of them must get it right. Or by a mind specifically arranging & freezing the elements just a a PC programmer does with his source code and an engineer does with his designs.

Evolution does not have the benefit of an endless supply of cells (multicell hypothesis) , and one lucky cell just happened to develop fixed elements. Evolution requires evidence one cell can continually change from one set of conserved elements to another completely different set of conserved elements. This evidence is nonexistent.

Just as if the universe tried to evolve its constants to another set of functional constants, it would crash the system. Its impossible to evolve conserved functional elements without crashing the system . You will eventually figure this out.

So a mind is the best explanation for fixed functional elements. And I have faith that mind belongs to God.

=====

"By what logic? You're assuming that said energy coaelsces into a mind without a body"

A body is not needed for a mind to exist. The single cell shows cognitive abilities, and you believe (by faith) this sentient cell arose by accident in a miniscule (relatively speaking) amount of time. Yet you have such a difficult time accepting a sentient being could have arisen before we did. If all the elements for life existed after the BB, we have no reason to believe they did not exist before the BB because they came out of the BB.

=====

"If it's merely non-living energy there's no reason why it MUST at some point become a God"

Just as there is no reason why non living energy/matter MUST at some point become a human.

Your logic is consistently inconsistent. If entropy did not exist in this universe, humans could never naturally die, thus facing all of eternity, humans must become all knowing beings, its the inevitable consequence of being alive forever.

You only believe in abiogenesis & evolution of an intelligence when its conveniently restricted to our universe & planet . There is no line of reasoning you can use to substantiate abiogenesis must be restricted to earth or this universe. In order to say abiogenssis is not possible before the BB, you must have a valid theory of abiogenesis to begin with, and even then there could be many different ways a life could arise

=====

"even computerized artificial minds require, well, computers."

Of course, however this line of reasoning fails. Either the "computer" (a mind) existed forever, or it was a produced by abiogenssis. You believe a mind can arise in a primordial soup without the aid of another mind, so you contradict your own line of reasoning

===

"It seems to me however that if a God can come into existence on its own that the idea that life like ours, far less complex than an immaterial God, could also do it. So it seems a bit odd that you defend abiogenesis for your God while attacking scientific abiogenesis"

I told you because abiogenesis without entropy and with an eternity to take place satisfies two of the major problems for abiogenesis, time and degradation. Remove those two obstacles and abiogenesis is inevitable.

Abiogenesis on earth has to deal with these problems, abiogenssis before the BB does not have to deal with these problems.

=======

"I've yet to get a good answer as to what MEANS this God uses to create and as to why an all knowing God would create a system with so many inherent flaws and with so much suffering involved."

The means have no relevance. I explained to you the means of creation changes. The means for building a pyramid thousands of years ago is not he same means as today, the means have absolutely no relevance to the evidence. Because someone 1000 years ago could not figure out the means the pyramids were built, does this equate they give up and say natural forces eroded them? of course not. The evidence for design supersedes the means.

And unless you have the ability to design and build the thing that you critique, you are not qualified to critique it. The temporary suffering is serving an eternal lesson that will never be forgotten.

Planet earth is a school, and you will learn this.

=====

"The fact of the matter is that the ID hypothesis fails as an explanation."

I.D. does not attempt to explain suffering or other philosophical questions. I.D. only attempts to explain the origins of complex fixed functional elements and information systems, that's all I.D. does. Your problem is you keep mixing rudimentary philosophy with logic and expect things to make sense.


John Nicol 2 years ago

Wait- so you're arguing against creationism being taught in schools? aren't you basically setting up your own propaganda by not telling both sides of the story? creationism and Christianity have plenty of evidence for them. what about the Cambrian Explosion? what about perception of good and evil? what about logic? There is enough evidence for Creationism to be a theory if media doesn't immediatly label it as "Religious Manipulation of Science."


Rad Man 2 years ago

How is the cambrian explosion evidence for creationism? Sorry but the only evidence for creationism is what is taught in the bible. If it wasn't in the bible it wouldn't be on the table.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 2 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Evolution isn't propaganda, its science. Creation isn't scientific.

"Christianity have plenty of evidence for them. what about the Cambrian Explosion?"

The Cambrian explosion is an 80 million year span of evolutionary history, so its great evidence for evolution and not creation.

"if media doesn't immediatly label it as "Religious Manipulation of Science."

Except that it IS religious by its very nature, as a movement its goal is entirely religious and anti-science.


John Nicol 2 years ago

"the cambrian explosion is an 80 million year span of evolutionary history" ooookayyy- then why is it called the cambrian EXPLOSION? it wouldn't be exactly evolutionary- "Nature does not leap," you know.

"The only evidence for creationism is what is taught in the bible" how the heck would you know that? have you come up with a list of all possible interpretations of facts and found that the only evidence for Creationism is, in fact in the Bible?

"its goal is entirely religious and anti-science" wait, whaaaaat? anti-science? who said anything about that? see- these days people have a distorted view of science as being anything that agrees with Evolution. if someone questions evolution, they are immediatly labeled as a "Religious fanatic" and ignored. believe me, I've read some comments on other hubs, and basically what the atheists say there is "evolution is a fact. You're manipulating science. no wonder your religions causes so many conflicts. LOL." that's why I haven't commented on other atheistic hubs- I just get too ticked off at what the authors say.


John Nicol 2 years ago

I notice that you haven't answered my argument about human knowledge of good and evil- I'll give you benefit of doubt and assume you just haven't gotten around to it yet. but let me enforce it. C.S. Lewis was once an atheist, and his main argument against christianity was that if God existed, why was there so much evil in the world? well, he got to thinking- if God didn't exist, then is there really such a thing as evil? or good, for that matter? what is justice without a just God?


Rad Man 2 years ago

Hey John, do you have a time frame you need nature to keep to? Have a look around, you'll find somethings evolve slowly if at all and somethings have evolved rapidly.

How do I know that the only evidence for creationism is in the bible? Well, that's because that's the only place it's mentioned. Are the genetic evidence, fossil evidence? No, nothing but what's in the bible.

You are free to question evolution, that's true and it's a good idea. Study it, look at the evidence, but don't dismiss it because a few slave owning sheep herders a few thousand years ago told you to.

The truth is good and evil only exist in our minds. These terms are relative to humans in that we can determine what is good for humans and what humans shouldn't be doing. We don't need slave owners from thousands of years ago telling us to kill a goat for having a boy and kill two for having a girl, and BTW, I'll kill them for you, just leave them at the alter. Have you ever read any of the nonsense contained in the OT? Some of it carries over into the NT.


John Nicol 2 years ago

"do you have a time frame that you need nature to keep to" what do you mean? please explain.

"Good and Evil can only exist in our minds"- but then- you are aware that we've found several secluded cultures in the world- and none of them- with their diverse settings- absolutly none of them have completly different codes of conduct from each other. None of them say that it's good to betray friends- people who have done good things for you- when it's to your advantage to do so.

And for Evolution- so- it's taken millions of years for apes to evolve into humans- why aren't they still doing that? why the heck aren't there borderline apes who are evolving even as we speak, into just rather hairy humans? humans and apes co-exist in some parts of the world. and another thing- how did we find ourself at the top of the heap of natural selection? We aren't agile, like goats, our babies can't even walk until they're two, let alone run from predators. Then why are we dominating the other species? And, for that matter, why are we surviving? Must be divine providence, no?

"No, nothing but what's in the bible" Well, I found something- see what you think! http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/ar...


John Nicol 2 years ago

"do you have a time frame that you need nature to keep to" what do you mean? please explain.

"Good and Evil can only exist in our minds"- but then- you are aware that we've found several secluded cultures in the world- and none of them- with their diverse settings- absolutly none of them have completly different codes of conduct from each other. None of them say that it's good to betray friends- people who have done good things for you- when it's to your advantage to do so.

And for Evolution- so- it's taken millions of years for apes to evolve into humans- why aren't they still doing that? why the heck aren't there borderline apes who are evolving even as we speak, into just rather hairy humans? humans and apes co-exist in some parts of the world. and another thing- how did we find ourself at the top of the heap of natural selection? We aren't agile, like goats, our babies can't even walk until they're two, let alone run from predators. Then why are we dominating the other species? And, for that matter, why are we surviving? Must be divine providence, no?

"No, nothing but what's in the bible" Well, I found something- see what you think! http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/ar...


John Nicol 2 years ago

I could give you more sites, if you want. It looks like my second site didn't manage to get posted. let me try this again.

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.h...


Rad Man 2 years ago

John, some things adapt very little because they are well adapted to their environment, it when you take them out of that environment that we see them change.

As for Good and Evil, we are all humans and therefor understand what is right for us rather than what someone tells us what is right for us. Lions understand what is right for lion as do zebra's and all other animals.

"And for Evolution- so- it's taken millions of years for apes to evolve into humans" LOL, sorry we are still apes, but if you go back billions of years you would not find chimps or gorilla's, you'd find something else and the fossil and genetic evidence confirms this. It's like saying the T-Rex evolved, why do we not see anything like it now.

So you found a website that is willing to lie for Jesus? Okay.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 2 years ago from back in the lab again Author

" then why is it called the cambrian EXPLOSION? it wouldn't be exactly evolutionary"

You do understand that the name of things doesn't always describe them very well right? The Big Bang wasn't an explosion either. They call it the Cambrian EXPLOSION because it was an explosion of diversity, but it was an explosion that took 80 million years of evolution.

" how the heck would you know that?"

Because I used to be a creationist.

"these days people have a distorted view of science as being anything that agrees with Evolution"

No. Creationism is directly and openly anti-science. When I was a creationist I look at scientists as part of a conspiracy in the same tone you are striking here with your distorted view of science nonsense. As if there is some kind of conspiracy to suppress creation. Creationism isn't science, its religious by its very nature and proposes magical creation as the answer to the origins of both life and biodiversity. All of that AND all of its arguments involve tearing down science and evolution with fallacies, strawman arguments and blatant lies because creation has no evidence of its own.

"I just get too ticked off at what the authors say."

Then don't read them, just go look at the evidence for evolution, its overwhelming.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 24 months ago from back in the lab again Author

I am familiar with CS Lewis' work both in fiction and in his apologetics. The moral argument for the existence of God, unfortunately for Lewis, is potentially the weakest argument there is for one simple and obvious reason, there is no such THING as evil.

Evil is a word that WE, human beings, use to describe behaviors that we find abhorrent and extremely harmful. We are the ones that decide what is good and what is evil using a combination of reason and natural empathy (caring for others). Murder isn't evil because God said so, what kind of bullshit reason is that for something to be considered wrong - no, murder is evil because its harmful, because it robs someone of life, it robs their loved ones, it robs society of a member.

"what is justice without a just God?"

It is something that we have to sort out for ourselves.


John Nicol 24 months ago

Could someone please at least tell me why my comments have stopped getting posted?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 15 months ago from back in the lab again Author

I apologize John, though it isn't my fault.

For some reason Hubpages saw fit to throw your comments in the spam folder and so I had no idea I had pending comments in need of approval. I realize it's been 9 months since you posted but I had no idea hubpages had done this. I'm approving most of them, other than the ones you reposted several times.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working