RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   
  Topic: It's all settled!...Proof God Exists!, Apparently, by asking the question does< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,21:08   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:57)
 
Quote
mmmmmm....Rational God.  So, you can offer proof of god?

Please do.  Oh, and as usual, don't assume if A is incorrect that proves B.

Carry on.


If time were on my side, maybe. But for now I will stop and wait for responses to my posts (if everyone hasn't given up that is - I have been distracted by my truck dying on me this week and was not able to respond promptly).

"If time evidence were on my side, maybe."

Fixed that for ya.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,23:57   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.

What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"?


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

2) Of course "God did it" is not a scientific answer. Do you expect scientific answers to non-science questions? Can science tell you if the person you love really understands you? Can science to tell you it is an act of compassion to feed the hungry? Not all questions are scientific questions. Some questions are historical, or emotional, or testimonial, etc. The origin of life may very well not be a scientific question. If life was started by a supernatural cause then all the looking in the world will never turn up a natural one (which is basically where we stand now).

3) I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver, a Mind who instilled order in the universe and who also gave us the rational capacity to understand that order, to analyze it, and to control/use/maintain it. I believe this because of rigorous philosophical examination, not as a simple whim. For more on this topic I suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, and others.

Quote
Hey, you know what would be great fun at parties? Line up a nice transitional series of fossils, then bring the creobots in one at a time and have them point to where they draw the micro/macro this species/that species line. We could start one end with an extant species, at the other end another extant species, and gradually meeting at the common ancestor in the middle.


That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved.


You could use the alleged evolution of the horse and then explain how the toes kept evolving forwards and then backwards until it ended in one giant toe with a huge nail. Of course, that would be a case of animal LOOSING complexity rather than gaining it so that doesn't really explain how animals have evolved from "lower" forms to "higher" more complex forms.

By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION. In fact, can anyone here tell me what takes place genetically when dogs are bred to exhibit specific traits? Are those traits created through breeding or are all the unwanted traits simply eliminated? Does a doberman have more genetic potential than say a mutt?

1)  Actually, "I don't know" is an answer.  It may not be a satisfying one, but it gives the limit of current knowledge (at least of the speaker).  To be honest, knowledge of ignorance is knowledge as well - just not the best kind.  There is so much we are ignorant of that in some areas we are only just discovering what we don't know, but scientists are steadily filling the void.  The best answer, short of actual knowledge is "I don't know, but I will try to find out."  This is the step that creationists jump over, going straight to "I will make shit up."

2) you spelled "non-science" when you meant "nonsense" - just fixing that for you.  Considering advances in neurology and the scientific study of ethics, perhaps some day those questions can be answered (albeit not to some people's satisfaction) - we can look for chemicals and effects in the brain that might indicate "understanding" - if our knowledge progresses that far, or we can look for other cues (body language, etc).  I doubt it's as reliable as asking a person, but we can design a study that does just that.  But trying to define "really understands you" in a meaningful way would be the difficult part, but it can probably be done.  However, the problem you have is that we are actually making progress into the mechanisms by which life may have risen, but if you want to postulate a "supernatural" (whatever that means) cause that started it all, but left no proof...well, why bother with it at all?  If it leaves no proof, then we cannot detect it, and if we can't detect it, then how can we distinguish it from nothing at all?  Waste of time.

3) Gak.  Judge Dread uses a Lawgiver.  The Orangutan on the ape planet was a Lawgiver.  Non-existent mental constructs that appease people's egos and fears...not so much.  We've come a long way since those people (except Geisler, who appears to be another in the long line of apologist hacks - from a quick review that I did, he seems to repeat the same tired and debunked arguments that others of his ilk do).  "yawn"

It's amazing that the hole is perfectly shaped for the puddle.  Must be Intelligently Designed.

Goody - genetic information.  Please define what you mean by information.  This should be interesting.  

You may want to scan the board and look for this topic, since it really comes up with the IDiots who have no understanding of it, and you want to be sure not to make the same mistakes they are making.  (You might also want to avoid the inane "ALL CAPS" - they do not add emphasis, but make you look a bit of a noob, and it's "losing" complexity (although even that claim may or may not hold water depending on how you define "complexity."  You may also want to drop the idea of lower/higher completely and just stick with the terms "simpler" and "more complex" (in the popular usage of the terms) - or say "unicellular to multicellular" - since evolution is not on any direct arrow, as things evolve they can indeed lose features and become "less complex" (common usage).  Nothing in evolutionary theory that says they shouldn't.

You might also want to look a little bit more into genetics before making such insipid claims about dogs.  Dogs that exhibit certain traits (that arise through mutation) are selected for those traits, and bred with similar animals so that the trait solidifies (more or less, this is pretty simplistic).  The traits are not created by the breeding, although they are refined.  And, no, all unwanted traits are not simply eliminated, since there are atavisms occasionally  and the inbreeding that produces some breeds can have negative consequences - physical and mental.  I have no idea what you mean with "genetic potential" - are you assuming some sort of Ideal that dogs must go towards, or are you referring to the potential for genes to mutate, or what?

Damn, that's a lot to write.  Any critiques from anyone else reading - did I screw anything up?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,00:29   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION.
This is a fairly common Creationist argument. In my experience, I have never yet encountered any Creationist who manages to accompany this argument with a good definition of this "genetic information" thingie -- certainly not a definition of "genetic information" that anyone can actually use to measure the stuff, and thereby confirm that mutations are incapable of "increasing" this "genetic information" stuff.
If Creationists do indeed have a definition for "genetic information" which would allow the stuff to be measured... well, it's got to be one king hell humdinger of a definition. Now, I can see how deletion mutations (i.e., something like starting with cccgtcagagtc and ending up with cccagtc) would be a loss of "genetic information", so that's not a problem. What is a problem is, how the heck do you get a loss of "genetic information" from an insertion mutation (i.e., something like starting with gtataacca and ending up with gtataaatacgattacca)? I just don't see it, myself. But what the heck; maybe you can succeed in dispelling my confusion/ignorance, PM! If you actually have a useable definition of "genetic information", you should be able to, y'know, use said definition to determine how much "genetic information" there is in any given sequence of nucleotides, right? So here are two nucleotide sequences for you to play with:

Nucleotide sequence one: tct gct att ttg gcg tcc gcc tcc gta act gtc tga aag cat gct gcg gtt ctt tac ggg gga gga ccc gag tga cgg agg cga agt gtg cag aag gaa gtt tac ccc tcg aga cgt ccc gct gcg gtc acc agg ttc tga agg aac act

Nucleotide sequence two: tat gag ctg acc cca caa cct gta cac gag agt aat gaa act agc tcc caa gac gat ccg caa aat cct tgg cta cta tta gta ggt cgc gat aca aac aga gtt gat aat ttc tca acg aag ccg att att tga gat gag aac ccc cag

Please, PM, would you be so good as to tell me which of these two nucleotide sequence has more "genetic information" in it -- and, more importantly, explain how you determined which sequence has more "genetic information"?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,05:55   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
 
Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.

What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"?


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

2) Of course "God did it" is not a scientific answer. Do you expect scientific answers to non-science questions? Can science tell you if the person you love really understands you? Can science to tell you it is an act of compassion to feed the hungry? Not all questions are scientific questions. Some questions are historical, or emotional, or testimonial, etc. The origin of life may very well not be a scientific question. If life was started by a supernatural cause then all the looking in the world will never turn up a natural one (which is basically where we stand now).

3) I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver, a Mind who instilled order in the universe and who also gave us the rational capacity to understand that order, to analyze it, and to control/use/maintain it. I believe this because of rigorous philosophical examination, not as a simple whim. For more on this topic I suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, and others.

As others have already pointed out, a scientist can say "I don't know" and remain true to scientific methodology. That is not pretending that ignorance is knowledge; it is admitting that the knowledge has limits.

More to the point, asserting, without a shred of evidence and in the absence of any mechanism, that "the universe has laws because it was created by a lawgiver" is begging the question and unscientific. Here's how a scientist would approach it.

1) Observation - The universe has laws.

2) Hypothesis - These laws arise because of the actions of a lawgiver (many auxiliary hypotheses underlie this, and probably should be explored as well).

3) Prediction - If the universal laws are the result of the actions of a lawgiver, then I should see ??????

4) Experiment - ??????????

5) Conclusion - The experiment is consistent/inconsistent with the hypothesis.

You seem to have skipped the prediction and experiment parts and used your hypothesis as a conclusion. Basically you are saying that if universal laws are the result of the actions of a lawgiver, then I should see universal laws. Science doesn't work that way, even if you think so.

Please fill in the ????? blanks in the outline above, and then we can talk about science some more.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Quack



Posts: 1758
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,06:49   

Quote
By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION.

Since I know computers better than I know genetics, what if

I take a top-down computer computer program an decide I want to make it shorter? I search for code sequences that are repeated in several places. I save one of the sequences, put it in a subroutine, delete all the original sequences, replacing them with just a call to the subroutine. Voila: Less code, same amount of work done!

It is not just about amount of code, number of bytes or whatever, it is about how the code is used, how it works. There are more ways than one of writing a complex program!

Creationists are sadly lacking in knowledge.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,10:24   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
 
Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

I'm a lowly layman wrt science in general, but I know that "knowledge" includes being aware of what you don't know. How could science proceed otherwise? Thomas Edison, in discussing his search for a viable filament material for his electric light, allegedly remarked that he had not failed--he knew 1000 things that wouldn't work. Science is continually filling gaps in knowledge (ignorance) with empirical reality, but it seems that you would prefer reference to an indescribable "designer" --or worse, a magic ghost--as "knowledge."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,12:15   

[quote=phantom menace,Dec. 15 2009,20:13][/quote]
Quote
Quote
So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation?


Their consistency, rationality, force, etc.


Already been done. See descriptions of Boyle's Law, E=MC^2, Laws of Thermodynamics. Quite lengthy explanations actually.

Quote
Why is there order when there should be disorder?


Two things come to mind here: 1) you are presuming there is order by definition, but you haven't actually explained what "order" is as opposed to disorder from a universe perspective. 2) You still haven't provided any evidence that there's a reason to think that universes could be any other way than the way this one is.

Quote
Just think thermodynamics - something within physics itself is working to burn this universe out, what started it up?


Inaccurate premise. There is nothing "in physics" period. Physics is an area of study, not a object. What I suspect you mean is that there is a property in the universe - in nature - burning things out. In any event, what evidence do you have that the properties of this universe could or should behave any other way?

Quote
Why are natural laws rational?


They aren't - natural laws don't think and aren't intelligent. Perhaps you meant to ask why natural laws induce organized processes. In which case I'd answer, because that's part of the definition of the term "law"

Quote
Why do you have a mind that grasps them
Why can you count? Etc.


We have a mind that can grasp laws because such a capability is an advantage to us. Ditto for counting.

Quote
It would seem to me that science PRESUPPOSES a rational universe, one that can be understood.


Well you'd be incorrect. Science doesn't presuppose a rational universe - science merely notes the parameters of the universe that have been discovered thus far. When someone shows that there are elements to the universe that do not behave in accordance to a repeatable process, science will take note of that instead.

Quote
That is precisely why science arose in a Christian worldview as opposed to a Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc. worldview. Early scientist believed in the order of the universe because they believed it was created by a rational God who ordered.


Perhaps, but such is merely question begging, not science.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,18:06   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,21:52)
You could use the alleged evolution of the horse and then explain how the toes kept evolving forwards and then backwards until it ended in one giant toe with a huge nail. Of course, that would be a case of animal LOOSING complexity rather than gaining it so that doesn't really explain how animals have evolved from "lower" forms to "higher" more complex forms.

Your language choices belie the assumption of your conclusion.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2009,04:37   

Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2009,08:42   

Quote
Cubist ...

Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...


Well, it has only been four days. He may still be analyzing. :)

 
Quote
phantom menace ...

I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver ...


No, no, I was wrong! I submit, I bear myself to the will of Landru! No! Lawgivers! Help! Help me!

--------------
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2009,12:01   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 20 2009,04:37)
Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...

I think maybe he and inquiry have spent enough time in enemy territory to qualify for Dembski's extra credit, and I'm sure he's very proud of them.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
  160 replies since Nov. 24 2009,07:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]