Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing.

Oh boy. This gets into one of the 5 views I had already mentioned. Some people BELIEVE that this universe came from NOTHING. Or that is, something came from nothing by chance and that something evolved over billions of years of time by chance into what it is now. That view fits right into what they are saying here. I told you, there is NOTHING unique on the table of options, get USE TO IT WORLD! Get use to it and get real with yourselves and CHOOSE the most plausible view. Believing something comes from nothing, is NOT plausible, and it’s CERTAINLY NOT PROVEN, that’s for darn sure! Believing something comes from nothing is a fairy tale. And then I even kept asking some of the folks on here that EVEN IF THIS WAS TRUE, I granted them this for a moment and said assuming that it’s correct, that something comes from nothing, ok, WHY does something come from nothing, or why is there something rather than nothing, to which I got NO ANSWER to this question. I mean, come on, give me a break. I mean if I am going to grant the assumption as correct, at least answer my question posed to the assumption, right? Isn’t that fair? Of course it is. But besides that, the assumption is just that, it’s an unproven assumption and it’s not even a reasonable or plausible assumption. Nothing ever comes from a vacuum, good gosh. Things people will believe. And it’s funny Evelyonian that you would cite an article like this after telling me that you don’t believe in any of the 5 views I had mentioned, yet this article clearly shows it agrees with one of the 5 views I mentioned, namely the one about something coming from nothing. So, you’re not consistent with your position.

Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing.

They admit by the word “supposedly” that space is empty. They don’t know that. Even if particles appear and disappear from the SIGHT of a person observing them, this does not mean that the particle is turning into “NOTHING” and then turning into SOMETHING again from nothing once it appears to the sight again. This should be so obvious. I find it scary sometimes how scientists and so called brilliant people use big fancy words and have very intelligent voices and charisma and they APPEAR intelligent and smart, but behind all that facet is nothing but STUPIDITY.

This is a real and measurable process, via what are known as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.

I'd like to emphasize that quantum mechanics doesn’t make sense in our experience of the world.

Another great admittance. They are admitting that there basically stupid. Of course it don’t make sense, I am glad they say so. But, the unfortunate thing is they have chosen to go against common sense. Wow.

As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd.”

No it don’t agree with experiment to be this assumption this whole article is pumping. This is their interpretation of an experiment, and it’s an irrational interpretation at that.

Also nature and quantum machanics is only absurd to those who don’t understand. If you come to understand something, it is then no longer absurd. Keep in open mind writer of this article by not calling things absurd that you don’t understand.

The physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth of MIT has put forth the scientific theory, called Inflation, that the Big Bang was just the result of a random quantum event called a vacuum fluctuation — with no cause, created out of the space vacuum, and with a total energy of zero.

In other words, watch this now, something came from nothing by “random” or chance, and evolved more by chance through much time. That is exactly what they are saying. Plausible? Not at all. And certainly not satisfactory.

Even tho this doesn’t make sense in the Newtonian physics of our experience of the world, it does make sense in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity.

No, it does not make sense on ANY LEVEL, not Newtonian physics nor even the quantum level does THIS ASSUMPTION make any sense. Just because they say it don’t make sense on a Newtonian physics level and that pleases me that they admit so, they are not going to say one good thing and then I let them fool me with the second thing they say. You can take a good cup of water and mix it with poison, it’s now no good. This article is not fooling me at all.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy. There is also excellent experimental and theoretical evidence to support Inflation Theory.

Absolutely insane how they can say there is evidence for this view but there is no evidence for God. Absolutely INSANE. There is no other good word for it, INSANE.

We may eventually determine that Inflation Theory is wrong or incomplete, and we may never be able to completely understand the actual beginning.

This part is honest in admitting it don’t know through the word “may”. “we MAY never be able to completely understand the actual beginning”. This admits they DON’T KNOW, and they are ASSUMING there view is correct.

 

[Jollybear]

It could be that we're not smart enough or that the physical science necessary is not possible for us to do.

The person who wrote this certainly is not smart enough, that part they got hands down.

But, that doesn’t mean that a god caused the Big Bang

God is certainly more plausible then something from nothing.

— any more than our past lack of understanding of weather meant that a god caused lightning.

They are comparing apples and oranges. And they show ignorance of what we mean by intelligent design. YES lightning is intelligently designed. But that does not mean that every time lightning happens outside that God is DIRECTLY shooting it in every direction.

Oh yea, the article got it really hands down about them not being smart enough. Absolutely could not agree more.

There are many well-respected physicists who have created scientific models where the entire universe could arise from nothing (or another universe) via natural processes, such as Lawrence Krauss, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.

Lawrence Krauss has shown that the positive energy of the universe is divided into about 70% dark energy, 30% dark matter, and less than 1% regular matter such as atoms — everything we see. As he noted, “Why such a universe in which we're so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond me.”

Well they should not be that well respected if they believe something came from nothing. I don’t respect such a view coming from a physicist who should know better than to believe such nonsense.

Seriously, even if I was NOT a bible believer or a believer in God, I STILL would not believe such nonsense as this article has pumped.

Also this word “natural processes” is becoming quite undefined and meaningless in hearing it so much.

Also the so called “other universe” is just another way of saying the multiverse, which has NO evidence for it. And something from nothing has no evidence for it. And even if there was multiple universes, it just begs the question, what about the complex universe maker?

It’s strange evelyonian that you say you don’t believe in none of the 5 views I mentioned, yet this one is amongst the 5 views. So why would you cite this as showing a problem with the first cause argument when you said yourself you don’t believe in this view? Seriously that is not consistent.

The next problem of the First Cause Argument is the assumption that an infinite chain of events is impossible.

It’s not an assumption, it’s a logical argument. If you have an infinite chain of events, then it will take an infinite amount of time for each event to take place. Do you KNOW what that means? Ding dong, that’s right, all of those chain of events will NEVER take place, and why? Because it’s taking an infinite amount of time for each event to take place.

Again, this article got it hands down on one thing, they are NOT smart enough.

And once again, if they want to SAVE the infinite chain of events view by saying all events happen at the SAME time, then that creates another problem, why is there motion?

Again, this article got it hands down on one thing, they are not smart enough.

This argument is made moot by the Big Bang,

Bull crap. The big bang does not make moot the first cause argument at all. And not only that, the big bang itself is questionable (which I am not going to debate in this thread) but even assuming the big bang is true, it certainly does not make moot the first cause argument.

which negates the need for considering an infinite chain of events in our universe.

Right, if they believe the big bang and believe something came from NOTHING by “random” as they put it, another word for “chance” that is just speaking the view amongst the 5 views I mentioned. There is NOTHING new on the table world. If they believe something was always here, that creates the problem of infinite regression, all events would take an infinite amount of time to take place, therefore they would not take place. If they believe something came from nothing, then that creates a new problem, which is, from nothing, nothing comes, duh, and it defies common sense and everyday experience and it’s NOT proven on top of it.

 

[Jollybear]

Because time started with the Big Bang, any question of what happened before is nonsensical — much like asking what is north of the North Pole.

Oh my gosh. Listen world, just because someone can write up a nice well put together article that has an appearance of intelligence behind it, that does not mean it’s smart, it’s a mask for ABSOLUTE STUPID.

So time PLUS other stuff came from NOTHING. Ok, whatever, it’s not plausible. Plus evelyonian you yourself said you don’t believe this, so why even cite it as an argument against the first cause? You know why you did? Because your DESPARATE to try to make an attempt to address the argument, but you know you CAN’T address it. This argument is the DOWNFALL of the atheist and agnostic. And I really believe God will remind you of it at judgment day and then ask you to address it. This article did NOT address it at all. It just preached it’s view that something came from nothing. WOW, all that time spent reading that nonsense.

Also here is a question for you. If time started with the big bang, was there a BEFORE the big bang?

Also do you believe TIME exists? If so, why do you believe that but won’t believe in God? Time is not seen nor touchable.

Also, many cosmologists have proposed that our universe could be part of a much larger, super and perhaps eternal meta-universe.

Oh great, just lovely, now the article has switched positions, they gone from believing something from nothing to believing multiple universes going back for an infinite period of time, so now time did not come from nothing or the bang. Ok, if they want to be inconsistent, here is the problem with that, problem one is, it’s inconsistent, and problem two is, if they want to STICK to this position, then they must account for how an infinite chain of events could take place if it takes an infinite amount of time for each event to take place? How could each event take place? They must account for that. But will they? OHHHHH…..NO, of COURSE THEY WON’T! good gosh. All they will keep on doing over and over and over again is just keep hoping around and doing the dance as I shoot at their feet. Seriously, watch that bugs bunny link I gave you, you need to watch that. You may learn something from it.

In this meta-universe (a.k.a. multiverse) “baby” universes are created by pinching off from “parent” universes — leaving no way to inquire about the characteristics of a parent universe.

Ok, they are inconsistent, which is it, time from nothing, something from nothing? Or time and something are eternal? What the heck is there position? State it clearly and STICK TO IT. And then account for the problems involved with it.

We certainly don’t know for sure, and may never know.

This part is honest, good. That is right, they don’t know. The only views on the table are the 5 I mentioned and THIS I KNOW, I KNOW….YES….I KNOW. There are only 5 views on the table. The God view is most plausible whether you like it or not like it.

However, this meta-universe would allow infinite chains of events.

How could this meta-universe allow infinite chains of events? They are just pumping words out there butt. Meaningless words that hold no logical argument for them.

Again, let me exhaust myself and say this again. If you have an infinite chain of events, whether that be by one universe or many universes, parent and daughter universes (who cares) how will all chains of events take place since all events are taking an infinite amount of time to take place?

Another problem comes from the common definition of God as eternal, perfect and unchanging. If these qualities were true, then why would God need a universe and how could God change from not needing a universe to needing and creating one?

What a WEAK argument and it’s based on IGNORANCE OF GOD! I am not only going to shoot and make this article dance now, I am going to shoot it right in the foot. Just because God creates the universe does not mean he changed by NEEDING the universe. He did not create it because he needed it, he created it because he is a creator, an artist, and full of love and love seeks to express and be unselfish. That means, God is not just going to love himself, he is going to create and love that which he creates. Thus God does not change then.

This god would have existed for an eternity and then decided to create the universe. Thus, the Creator God that is eternal, perfect and unchanging is impossible.

For the love of me I cannot see how they made this leap? In other words this is what I hear them saying, because God is eternal and then created the universe, this makes him impossible. What a joke. At least explain why they made this leap. Goodness.

The last problem with the First Cause Argument lies in its assumption that this eternal god exists, something that it is trying to prove.

SOMETHING has to be eternal and SOMETHING has to have a FIRST cause based on PURE LOGIC alone. Now which view is most plausible? GOD.

 

[Jollybear]

This is known as begging the question. Even a child can ask, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” If the answer is that God is uncaused, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is uncaused.

Here is the problem though, how could the infinite uncaused universe break the cycle of eternity in order to BEGIN it’s chain of events, so it does not take an eternal or infinite amount of time for these chain of events to take place? Did it happen by chance? Or by intelligence? Intelligence is MORE plausible. If you want to believe the cycle of eternity broke by chance, go right ahead, I won’t believe that though and again, if I am right and your wrong, you’re in hot water.

Besides, which god are we talking about? People using the First Cause Argument always make the assumption that their god did the creating. Muslims think that Allah created the universe. Hindus think that Brahma did it. Christians and Jews think that Yahweh did it. Most religions have a story of how their god created the universe. The idea of a god as creator of the universe makes for a good tale, but it obviously tells us little about the characteristics of that god. What they are doing is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery, and that is fallacious logic.

No it’s not fallacious logic. If I seen a house, I could say it has the hallmarks of design and it has a first cause principle behind the building of it. Therefore an intelligence built the house. Who cares about the “characteristics” of the person who built the house, there is still evidence and plausibility for an intelligence behind the house. The characteristics of the person or builder has nothing to do with the fact that intelligence built the house. There statement is fallacious logic, but then again, mostly everything in their article is fallacious logic. Even they admit they are not smart enough. And I sure agree.

Plus even if God is mysterious in himself, that does in no way dampen the evidence for intelligence or the plausibility of it. The builder of this computer is a complete mystery to me, I have no clue who he is, but I know intelligence made my computer. Same thing with God.

Plus, once again, they are using another weak and stupid argument, about WHICH god is the right one? Who cares at the moment which God is the right one, any religion who has a god or goddesses can use intelligent design. Secondly, I have been over this time and again and this argument ALON with the first cause argument has not been addressed, a FINITE god cannot be the TRUE God. That argument was not addressed. There are ways in finding out WHICH God is the true one.

But that is another argument, deal with the argument for intelligence just by itself.

You atheists and agnostics have a hard time answering questions and building arguments don’t you? And then you act like you OWN science. You like to hijack the plain without knowing how to properly drive it.

There, ALL DONE.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Come on now, this is a discipline for me too, so be fair. Patience would not be called patience if there was not frustration go against.

I think if we BOTH keep in mind that we live in two completely different worlds and practices and beliefs and we don’t know each other very well, accept on here, that should help us have compassion for one another.

I have patience, JB. It's simply that 55 pages of you repeating the same arguments over and over is beginning to wear my patience just a little thin. I'm going to try a new style with you and, hopefully, we'll get somewhere.

Ok, I am going to ask a few questions about the picture.

What is the black outer part?

Space

What is the blue section?

Light

What is the white section? (I assume the black is space, and the white is the light?) but what is the blue?

Both the blue and white are light, they're just on different parts of the spectrum.

The light in the center is a galaxy. The four points of light surrounding the galaxy are actually produced by a single quasar. The light "bends" around the galaxy due to the galaxy's gravitational field, creating the illusion of four separate lights.

That would hold true for things that are mockeries and have no solid history behind it or good arguments behind it. But in the case for God, this is not true and therefore to assume he is not there is a dangerous gamble.

Now if you respond to this by saying it’s nonsense again, remember, that is not an argument, nor a refutation.

Look, I'm sure that you take matters of religion very seriously. I don't. I see no reason to. God, to me, is nothing more than the figment of someone's imagination, just like the FSM, teapot, and unicorn. You may think that it's a dangerous gamble for me to ignore your god. I don't see it that way.

What do you mean?

Look up "Playing Chess with pigeons"

Seriously though, if you call my statements nonsense or they don’t make sense, or you don’t answer some questions, then you have stopped debating. So by the standards of debate, you are losing the debate.

If I told you that a little invisible, intangible elf who lives on my left shoulder told me that there was no god, would you see that as a rational argument? Would you see that as something worth even trying to debate or would you simply dismiss it as the nonsense that it is?

That's all I've been doing here. I've tried to respond to the things worth responding to and dismissed the nonsense as nonsense.

You’re not understanding something. I’ll tell you what, I’ll spell it all out.

If something comes from nothing, why is there something rather than nothing?

If light pierces darkness then why is there light rather than darkness?

Your question is set up wrong. You presuppose that something exists and then simply ask why it's there instead of nothing at all.

I think "How can something come from nothing?" might work better?

If something does not come from NOTHING, that means something comes from something. That something else is either a form of chaotic energy or it comes from a mind.

Okay, let's assume for the moment that there was an actual trigger event (first cause). Why must that cause have been intelligent?

If it comes from chaotic or static mindless energy then when did it BEGIN or START it’s creating process, since it is eternal in time? Thus a contradiction. If a mind did it, how did the mind break the cycle of eternity in order to BEGIN a creation?

Okay, let me address this "Cycle of Eternity" real quick.

A "cycle of eternity" is a contradiction in terms. A cycle, by definition, has a beginning and an ending point. Otherwise how could we judge where the cycle started anew? Eternity, on the other hand, has no beginning and no ending. Therefore, It isn't cyclical.

Cycle: an interval during which a recurring sequence of events occurs.

Eternity: time without end.

If eternity cannot end, it cannot be cyclical. There is no "Cycle of Eternity".

You see, there is no other angle to hit at here. It’s either one of these that is true. And don’t come back and say “except for the one you did not think about” because look, there is no other angle to hit at. This covers ALL bases. If you want to find a problem with all 5 of these views, by all means do so, but one of them has to be right since there is no other angle to hit at. All of these views HEM us all in from every side.

So it’s more like this “the idea of the universe coming about from any of these 5 views seems implausible to me, therefore ONE OF THEM must have done it”.

That’s how it should be put.

But, again, the 5 views are based in our knowledge as it is right now. That's why I keep saying, "Except for the one (or more) that you haven't thought of yet." I'm not trying to dodge you, I'm simply saying that, in time, it's possible that our knowledge will grow enough to either allow a new view on the table or conclusively prove one of the five existing ones. Until that happens, I'm not interested in picking one of them or limiting myself to them.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

What conditions does my view (view of God’s existence) have to meet?

You cannot test for the supernatural. The experiments would have to be based on an observable, testable prediction. There is no known method for observing or testing for a god.

True, agreed. Therefore big bang, something from nothing, macro evolution, cosmic evolution, it’s all philosophy.

No, they aren't. If we can observe something then how is it philosophical? We can observe Evolution on both the Micro and Macro scale. When can observe the after effects of the big bang and use General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to work backwards to the event itself (All the way back to a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the event.)
We have the evidence for these things. The theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed to an almost unimaginable degree (it was once compared to predicting the width of North America to the accuracy of one human hair.)
JB, as much as you don't like it, we know that these things happened. They're not philosophical. They been observed, tested, and verified.

Tell me what it is in your own words?

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Formulate a hypothesis.
4. Test your hypothesis via an experiment.
5. Analyze your results and draw a conclusion.
6. If the hypothesis proves false, return to step 3.
7. If the hypothesis proves true, report your results for peer review. This will allow others to independently test your theory in various ways and see if it indeed proves true. If it is shown, through multiple tests, that your hypothesis is true, then your hypothesis becomes a "theory".

I see what you’re getting at, yes. But you’re not seeing what I am saying, which is there is no other angle to hit at, one of these 5 views are right, I am just going to say 5, because your position (I don’t know) is not a view in itself.

The 5 views are irrelevant to the argument from complexity. Remember, we're dealing with just one question here: "Is complexity evidence of design?"

Your either not understanding the loophole or you’re on purpose trying to dismiss it. YES, there is a loophole and it is a VALID STRONG ONE.

No, it isn't. It's a fatal flaw. It's like saying 2+2=4 except when it equals 5.

You cannot use complexity as evidence for design as long as you also postulate a complex god. This isn't a difficult concept. First cause doesn't apply to this discussion. We're not worried about first cause, only about complexity's relationship to design.

This is where your not understanding or your dismissing something very powerful. It’s NOT (it’s NOT) Irrelevant. There HAS to be a FIRST cause BECAUSE if there was not, all events would NOT happen, or they would all happen at the same time, thus leaving us NO MOTION.

Irrelevant. First cause has no bearing on this issue.

Is complexity evidence of design or not?

To this day you have not addressed that. If you’re not going to address it, how about ATLEAST tell me WHY it’s not worth addressing?

I just did.

No, no, there is a loophole. Even if God is NOT the correct view, STILL there has to be a FIRST cause otherwise if there is not, all events would not happen, or they would all happen at the same time, thus leaving no motion. Your bent on not addressing that, you keep saying it’s nonsense or it’s irrelevant or it’s not worth addressing. I’m sorry, it is very worth addressing. Many minds have used this argument, it’s worth addressing.

Again, I'm not worried about first cause. It's a separate issue. One which we can resolve later if we can ever get past complexity.

So, I'll ask again: Is complexity evidence of design or not?

I'll respond to the rest later

 

[The_Evelyonian]

O, and how do you know that you know that you know that you don’t know how it got here?

Because I know it.

No, I did not prove that I don’t know what I am talking about. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ll explain below

Just as I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Just because there is order and then an appearance of NO ORDER at the quantum level, does not mean there is no reason or cause for that lack of order at the quantum level. Things don’t happen for nothing.

Study Quantum Mechanics.

Prove this.

Look up the Double Slit Experiment.

Who cares if you can or can’t. Making a wrong prediction or not knowing what will happen does not mean there is no cause. I can’t believe we are even debating this section. Talk about quantum weirdness, THIS is weird here debating this section.

To postulate cause when when you can't even prove cause applies would be a waste of time. Besides, it's already been shown that even trying to observe the quantum realm changes it.

And you can’t show that there IS NO CAUSE and EFFECT on the quantum scale.

If you wish to assume cause where none can be shown to exist then feel free.

Plus EVEN if you were right. Ok, answer this question then, why is there SOMETHING rather than nothing?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy answers this one.

Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘There is nothing’ because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer.


Is there any a priori support for ‘There is nothing’? One might respond with a methodological principle that propels the empty world to the top of the agenda. For instance, many feel that whoever asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof. If an astronomer says there is water at the south pole of the Moon, then it is up to him to provide data in support of the lunar water. If we were not required to have evidence to back our existential claims, then a theorist who fully explained the phenomena with one set of things could gratuitously add an extra entity, say, a pebble outside our light cone. We recoil from such add-ons. To prevent the intrusion of superfluous entities, one might demand that metaphysicians start with the empty world and admit only those entities that have credentials. This is the entry requirement imposed by Rene Descartes. He clears everything out and then only lets back in what can be proved to exist.

And why does something at the quantum level happen, rather than nothing happen?

What part of "You can't predict cause" do you not understand?

Oh yea sure……it is. Last time I checked, I witnessed it go bang too. And I lived so far to be 4 billion years old, I witnessed macro evolution all the way through. Oh yea, we observe it alright, give me break.

This earned you a spot on my ignore list. I'll respond to the rest of your posts but then I'm finished with you.

No, they are certainly philosophy. If they are theory and interpretation and hypotheses, then it is philosophy.

Okay, I'll add science to the list of things you don't understand.

 

[painted wolf]

Ok, well I told you, information comes from minds, intelligence. If it does not come from minds, then one cannot rightfully call it information. They can call it gibberish and say it does not come from minds, but then, how can a complex body come about without a mind, with no information?

Particularly the first life form.

But, how do you know that an intelligent mind created DNA? How do you know DNA is information, by your definition?
What about RNA? or enzymes or proteins....

I didn’t say they did not LOOK at it, I said they did not look at the millions of miles long scroll of it.

What? this doesn't make any sense. Either I've looked at something or I haven't.

Have they looked at the whole scroll? Miles long, from here to the moon and back ten times over long? Have they looked at that whole thing? And if not, how can they know if there was anything ADDED at the end of the scroll or in the scroll? For instance, lets say the scroll has 1 zillion letters, how do they know if it comes to be 1 zillion and 1?

didn't I just answer this? Yes, we have looked at the whole thing.

Here is a quote I found

This guy hasn't been active in the scientific community for over a decade... He is woefully out of date.

I know what I will do, I will use a simple explanation to prove my point. Let’s say you have a hairy bear, with long hair. This bear has sex with another hairy bear, then they produce offspring and there kid is a hairy bear. Then let’s say there is a bear with short hair, it has sex with another short hair bear and they produce offspring that has short hair. Now natural selection takes over and it is very hot outside. So the long haired ones die off, while the short haired ones don’t die off, there, that is the end of the information for the long hair. How is the short haired ones which don’t have the information for long hair, pass down long hair information?

Is long hair a dominant, ressessive, homozygotic or heterozygotic trait? what about short hair?
If it's AA vs. Aa... then yes, it can be retained in the genome very easily... even if it isn't, hair length is likely polygenetic and thus it is one of many genes that interact and would likely be retained as part of the hair length complex of genes.

Your examples are not good for explaining genetics... they are very misinformed and terribly oversimplified.

Ok, in some cases that could happen with the English language. But let’s take rain again, change it to “ainr” < no longer useful. And even if it does change to rein from rain, it is only still USEFUL within it’s proper context. For instance, the whether forecast for charlotte Monday is going to be rain. Now change that to “the whether forecast for charlotte Monday is going to be rein” it does not make sense does it?

Plus I was talking about scrambling letters, in the word rain and rein you did not scramble it, you changed the A to a E.

I'm trying to explain why your examples don't work.
DNA is nothing like the english (or any other) language. It doesn't have syntax, or words or letters.

Even if you scramble the codons of a gene you will still get a gene product. Unless the mutation causes a stop codon or removes the start codon. In which case the gene is still there, but silent until another mutation happens to reactivate the gene.

Whether it’s words or language or blueprint, all of that is information and DNA is information based. And information comes from intelligence.

Plus adding words does not necessarily mean changing the information. Watch “I got up and cooked eggs” and now watch “I got up and fried my eggs”. It still means the same thing. Now if I said I cooked eggs AND made toast, that would be adding information.

And that is what some mutations do! They add toast! :banghead3:

Huh? You lost me. I did not make something new. I got up and cooked 4 eggs, to I got up and fried FOUR eggs. It means the same thing.

But you did... when you change the codon AGC to ACG you are telling the cell to make something totally new.
Stop using your bad analogies and look at what is really happening... it's not that hard to understand if you actually try.

When you have sculls, you have to imagine or speculate what they looked like with skin on. And then you have to speculate if they were fury or not.

Minor details... the important parts, structure and function are not guesswork.
Skin color, hair and so on are unimportant in the overall picture.

I don’t know what it is, but for some reason I am not understanding what your trying to say here. Could you detail please?

I'm saying that there are no diseases known that can account for what we see in the fossil reccord... your request is therefore IMHO an attempt to find a way to justify ignorning the evidence.

Facts speak for themselves yes, but macro evolution does not speak for itself, that’s FOR SURE.

When it comes to facts, I believe ALL facts. I DENY NO facts at all, not even ONE.

With all due respect... I don't think you know the facts. You're insistance of confusing language and genetics just demonstrates the point.

Ok, give me a GOOD metaphor for DNA then. If the English language is not a good metaphor, give me what you think is the BEST one?

There isn't one, that I have ever heard. That is why I used GCA to actually demonstrate what can happen.

How does the copy change? If you copy something in a printer, it’s a copy of that which was printed, so how does it change?

DNA transciption is not like a photocopier... it doesn't exactly replicate the origional.
There are several kinds of mutations...

Point mutations like going from GCA to GGC These tend to be pretty harmless more often than not.
Inversion mutations ... GCA to ACG or GAC
Duplication mutations ... GCA to GCCA or GGCA or GCAA or GCAGCA
Delition mutation... GCAAT to GCAT these mutatations usually go allong with insertion mutations where you get... AAGGC to AAGACT

Some of these happen when two halves of a chromosome line up and bits get swapped from one to another...
Translocation is when part of one chromosome is removed and ends up stuck to a totally different chromosome. These tend to be harmful far more often than not.

This kind of mutation isn't caused by changes in the DNA... it is caused by errors in development usually due to a chemical that interferes with genes called HOX.

This is not the kind of mutation we are talking about....

Just to make sure we understand each other... a lot of people who haven't studied the subject think all mutations are the same.

wa:do

 

[The_Evelyonian]

No, you have not seen it, no one has seen it. They think they have, but there are gaps, there are micro changes, that&#8217;s all they have seen. They have not seen new information come about, just a loss of it.

Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory | Digital Bits Skeptic

You misunderstand. If God gives FREE WILL, that means he is GIVING UP knowing what they will do in the future with that free will. You cannot give free will and at the same time know what will be done with that will, for if you know what it will do, then you are controlling what it will do, thus it&#8217;s not truly free will.

With design, comes trade offs. Either you design the will to be in bondage so you will know, or you design it to be free, so you will not know. There are trade offs with design. That&#8217;s how design works.

Right, he cannot make himself none existent, so yes his power has limits. But nothing in his creation can limit him. He can manipulate the laws of nature anytime he wants, thus miracles. In that sense he has all power over creation.

Right, he is infinite by this definition, yes. He is infinite in space, he is eternal in time. Let me explain that time part because I think it may cause confusion. Time is not a TAPE that is rolling, in other words the FUTURE is not SET in stone. Time is not a rolling tape sort of speak. God is not infinite in the sense of being outside of time, time is not there as a tape to be OUTSIDE OF. God just has no beginning in his existence within himself. In that sense he is infinite or eternal in time. As for space, he is infinite in space.

Wrong. But how did you make that leap from the explanations you gave above? It&#8217;s like if someone told me 2+2=5 I would ask, how did you come to that leap that it&#8217;s 5?

Just did.

Wrong, you either misunderstood, or you have faulty logic, or I misunderstand your logic, and therefore you have to explain your conclusion better.

Something that is infinite has no limits. You already stated that god has limits. Therefore, he is finite.

Some are fairy tales and some are imaginative, but ONE of them is real. For someone who sticks to the &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; position he sure wavers back and forth between asserting stuff with utmost certainty. If you don&#8217;t KNOW I am wrong, then you should have a measure of concern. I&#8217;ll ask you this, if you&#8217;re not one bit concerned AT ALL, why do you even debate the issue? THAT is a good question right there for ya.

Boredom mostly

I have no reverence for some managers at my job, simply because they display hypocrisy. But I do have concern for my job and therefore am very careful.

You don&#8217;t have to revere my God, but why show no concern for yourself?

Because I don't feel that concern is warranted

If there was no natural explanation, would you say &#8220;well we don&#8217;t yet KNOW why the mark is there, so why say &#8220;God did it&#8221;? Thus the &#8220;God of the gaps&#8221; again. Would you do that?

This is why I hate academic scenarios. I can't plan for every eventuality.

I mean how far will atheists go before they realize that &#8220;this natural explanation&#8221; thing is just a display of having a CLOSED mind.

Another reason for you to go on ignore.

Isn&#8217;t science the quest for &#8220;TRUTH&#8221; or is it just a quest to FIND ONLY a natural explanation? What is it all about, finding a natural explanation, or finding THE ACTUAL explanation?

There's no difference. If we could observe and explain something supernatural then it would no longer be supernatural.

To limit yourself ONLY to the natural displays an OBVIOUS closed mind.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

No, you can’t use that against him, because you twisted what I said. He hides himself from those who REJECT the OBVIOUS evidence. The evidence for God is the same as the evidence for gravity. IF you accept the evidence for gravity but reject the evidence for God, then God will hide himself from you. So it’s more like this

Oh yes, those who reject the obvious evidence. The evidence that is so obvious that you've been unable to post even a shred of it.

God > “why didn’t you believe in me?”
You > “why did you take such efforts to hide yourself”?
God> “because you rejected the evidence for me, so I will not force myself on you”

Me: What evidence?

or

Me: Oh, so instead you're going to torture me for eternity just because my faith couldn't overcome my reason. You gave me reason and now you will condemn me for using it, is that it?

It would be best if you just responded to my point

“Yea, and there are many people who have “experienced” God, including myself, so we have trust (faith) in him based on the experience and based on history and on a philosophical level as well.”

Some folk have heard God’s addable voice or seen him manifest to them in a form. They don’t need faith. Based on their experience, they choose to trust God. There trust is not in the experience, the experience makes them know, there trust is based on the experience.

So one does not need faith to know God spoke to them or appeared to them.

How do they know that they weren't hallucinating? Trust me, when you understand how the brain works, you discover that personal experience is a very weak form of evidence.

I am telling you why I believe. I am been telling it in detail during this whole debate. In short because it’s the view that is most plausible and it does have evidence, just not tangible if ya will. It’s like gravity, it has evidence, just not tangible.

Except that gravity does have tangible evidence for it's existence.

There is a few problems with what you said here.

First is it’s not making yourself believe that which YOU KNOW is false. (I know I am NOT from mars)

Okay.

Second it is not making yourself believe that which you know to be implausible.

Wrong. That is exactly what it is. I believe that the idea of a god is extremely implausible. For all intents and purposes, I know it. My faith cannot overcome that factor. I cannot choose to believe an implausibility.

Thirdly YOU CAN choose to believe what you want, just speak it out your mouth and say “I believe_______ < and fill in the blank. It’s very simple. You choose what you believe in or what you don’t believe in. Yes, you do have free will, yes you do.

Oh, so just saying it makes it so. Hmm, "I believe in god." ......... didn't work.

Even in the case of believing that I myself am from mars, even though I “KNOW” I am not from mars, I could FORCE myself to believe it by pure choice, I could say “I am from mars!” < there I just said it. But my belief is not as powerful as my knowledge, for I KNOW I am not from mars. But I am just trying to show that one can choose whatever they want despite the evidence or knowledge.

You contradicted yourself.

"there I just said it. But my belief is not as powerful as my knowledge, for I KNOW I am not from mars."

"But I am just trying to show that one can choose whatever they want despite the evidence or knowledge."

Right, I am not disputing that, yes It could throw the book’s trustworthiness into doubt, but that doubt does not necessarily mean that the WHOLE book is UNTRUSTWORTHY in everything it says.

Certainly makes talking it on blind faith a good deal more difficult.

God does not care what you think of him or what he does, he is going to do it anyway because he is God and he is in charge. He is not affected by your feelings. He is very confident about himself and his wisdom. He is better and wiser than any of us are. So he don’t care what someone thinks to the contrary.

But, he DOES care that if you distrust him, this will cut you off from him and lead you to hell. He does care about that. So, what he wants is your trust, he cares about that. He cares for you, but not about your false ideas or false interpretations of what he does.

Actually it’s kind of similar to how I do things in every day life. I care about people, but I don’t care what they think about what I do or believe, I am going to do and believe what I want whether they like it or not.

You can’t please everybody, can you? So some people understand what God is doing and some don’t. You can’t please all, can you? So, he don’t. Simple/

God's motivations are irrelevant. His actions are what counts.

IF they get lost, it’s their OWN fault, not God’s fault.

How? How is it there fault when they are following evidence that god put there?

God pointed them in the right direction, he gave them road signs and they decided to not follow them, so they get lost.

Yes, they chose to follow what they could actually see and prove rather than some ancient desert scribblings.

 

[painted wolf]

Well obviously because you would not expect a water AND land breather to breath better than JUST a land breather. Designs have trade offs.

actually there are some that are quite good at both... like the lungfish.

And is there any scientific evidence AGAINST the idea? I don’t know the answer to this, but I’ll ask you, maybe you know. There is just too much to read and I don’t know everything.

Against which idea?

Is there any fossils in the fossil record of these kinds of fish that breathe in and out of water?

OH yes... LOTS! They were the dominant freshwater fish for a while, until modern fish called Telosts appeared. The fossil record of the lobe-finned fish includes some fish like Tiktaalik that are so very close to being tetropods/amphibians that it's hard to say what group they belong to.

Ok, so we have a water/land breather. This water/land breather has sex with a water/land breather and they have a baby whom they passed their information down to, which is to be a water/land breather. Where do they get to become JUST a land breather?

Well not until somepoint in the amphibian-reptile split. Some amphibians still have gills. Reptiles are totally dependant on air.

Why wouldn’t other fish be there to get that food?

There may be many groups of fish trying to get into the area... but each group will find different ways of solving the problem.... One group, the Lobe-finned fish developed lungs and very muscular fins to "crawl" through debris and over land.

Why wouldn’t the predators follow them?

They will eventually... but more likely one of the liniage will become the predators themselves. Prey species tend to keep one step ahead of the predators... otherwise they are all lunch.

Why wouldn’t there be NEW predators were they went?

Not really... what would the predators have to eat until the prey show up? Predators follow prey otherwise they starve.

And still how would this turn them into a different kind of fish?

This is basic microevolution... added up over time.

wa:do

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I am going to put this so simple to prove my point. Let&#8217;s say I build a cart with old wood and old weels and then someone comes by and says &#8220;oh look at the old cart, it must have been this way for awhile&#8221;. Then I say &#8220;no, I just built it today&#8221; now imagine if they responded by saying &#8220;oh so your being deceptive then?&#8221; would that not be absolutely insane? If they responded like that I would be like &#8220;ok&#8230;..are you alright man? Is there any logic up stars there? I was not being deceptive at all, I was just wanting to build a cart and who cares if it looks old or not, I was just building a cart. What&#8217;s your problem?&#8221; then the guy responds &#8220;well since it looks old, you deceived me&#8221; if they responded like that I would be like &#8220;I did not lie about anything, because I did not tell you it was old at all, actually I was honest with you, I told you it was built just today&#8221; then they respond &#8220;ok, but you deceived me because it looks old&#8221; and then I would respond &#8220;ok, you&#8217;re nuts, see ya&#8221;.

You see the point? It&#8217;s the same with God building the universe.[/quote]

It's a flawed analogy. You're building your cart with materials that were already there. God is supposed to have made the earth from nothing. Therefore its appearance of age is intentional, not simply a side-effect that couldn't be helped.

Because you can only take responsibility for a mistake IF YOU ACTUALLY MADE A MISTAKE. That&#8217;s why God don&#8217;t&#8217; take responsibility for his mistakes because he don&#8217;t make any. His wisdom is perfect. If we don&#8217;t trust him, that is OUR mistake and it&#8217;s the BIGGEST mistake of our entire life.

Although God is saddened and feels sorry for how we may misunderstand him, YES, he does feel sorry that we misunderstand him. If you want to call that a form of taking responsibility, then fine he does take responsibility. But he does not take responsibility by means of regretting what he did or did not do, for what he does or does not do is in his perfect wisdom, therefore he won&#8217;t say sorry for what he did or did not do. He will only say sorry for how you misunderstood him.

So, he'll apologize that you misunderstood him, then torture you forever and ever. That's a real loving god right there.

Right, it&#8217;s their fault, they CHOICE not to believe his word. It&#8217;s not like they were ignorant of what it said.

No, it's just that what they could actually see and prove contradicted the ancient book, making it less plausible to them that the book was actually the words of a perfect god

You know, it&#8217;s getting very old how atheists and agnostics talk as if they OWN science, I am getting quite irritated by it. I am not saying we should ignore WHATEVER science says. You must realize that some things science says are WRONG and some things they say are RIGHT. As for scientific facts, they are ALL right, as for some of the THEORIES or explanations of those facts, those scientific theories are sometimes WRONG. Don&#8217;t listen to those things that are WRONG.

So, how to you decide which theories are right and which are wrong? I'm not using "you" in the rhetorical sense, I actually want to know how you, JB, make the call.

I am not saying to dismiss reason and go by faith. I am saying go by the most REASONABLE faith out of all the 5 views on the table. Faith has to be based on evidence and reason, not based in a vacuum

Faith is a belief in something without evidence, or even in spite of it. That is not reasonable.

Data is facts, theories are explanations of the facts. Dinosaur bones are data, therefore they are facts. So the devil did not put them there. Your mixing things up. There is no evidence that dinosaur bones exist, there is PROOF they exist. Now for the big bang and macro evolution, it&#8217;s not the same kind of evidence like the proof for dinosaur bones existing. Dinosaur bones existing is more solid then macro evolution evidence. Stop mixing up data with theories. That is misleading.

Bull crap. The genetic code is much stronger evidence for macroevolution than any fossil. The evidence for evolution in the genetic code is more solid than the "evidence for dinosaur fossils".

Did you just hear what you said there? You just contradicted yourself. First you say God did not warn anyone ahead o time about what he did. Then you said that he did by saying &#8220;I made it 6 thousand years ago, take my word for it&#8221;.

Well if he told us how he did it, then he warned us before we looked at nature then, didn&#8217;t he?

No, warning us ahead of time would have gone along the lines of,

"Just be careful, okay? I'm going to tell you right now that the earth looks old, but it isn't. I want you to know ahead of time so there's no confusion. I made it look old."

However, the bible doesn't contain this kind of warning. It simply says that the earth was created 6000 years ago but says nothing about any appearance of age.

And it&#8217;s not a DECEPTIVE appearance, it&#8217;s just APPEARANCE period.

So, why make the earth look older than it really is? What purpose does it serve?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Again, there are assumptions attached to these dating methods. So I question the underlying assumptions attached, therefore that makes me intellectually honest. And even if there was not any assumptions attached (which there is) it would not matter, since God can give an appearance of age, without the deception part.

You’re the one who says it’s intellectually honest to question our beliefs, ok, so would it not be intellectually honest to question dating methods then based on your own standard?

Because, if the dating methods are imperfect then it begs the question as to why they agree with such maddening consistency. The odds against all of the dating methods being universally flawed in such a way that they all point to an old earth are astronomical.

Your twisting my point. It’s more like this “I am lying that I have never debated with Jollybear” then someone looks over your posts and sees you debating me. That would tell them you are honest because they would read the FINE LINE of you saying “I AM LYING that I have never debated with jollybear”.

So, we have a book that says the earth is 6000 years old and a planet that is (or at least appears to be) 4.5 billion years old. Why trust the book?

Right, it is your fault, you choice to reject it and the evidence for it.

There's no evidence for a young earth outside of the book!

Ok, pardon me, let me step back and give you the video and let you comment on it. Now I would like you to do two things for me.

Comment on the debate skill ITSELF ALONE of BOTH opponents debating, both peter and Stephen, then secondly, where you think peter could have done better, UNLESS you think he did a perfect job.

Here is the video [youtube]tz-kqgyMNAk[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz-kqgyMNAk this is the first video amongst 11 videos. Click on that and watch and it will also have on the side the other 11 video’s. Enjoy.

I'll watch it when I have the time.

Ok, are they most fit by intelligence or by chance? You’re just begging the question

They are most fit by adaptation.

 

[painted wolf]

Ok painted_wolf, let’s hear it?

Sorry for the bold, I had to do it in case you skimmed over.

No problem... I would have missed it otherwise.

Abiogenesis seems reasonable given what we know about chemistry. RNA is capable of self replication under the right circumstances and producing RNA requires heating and cooling nucleotides so they can stick together. RNA can both code for proitens, act as an enzyme and act as a transcription/duplication mechanism... very useful for starting life off with the minimum number of parts. All it needs is a lippid shell for a cell wall and the right environment.

Many of the details need to be worked out, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the hypothesis that I can see. I think it's an interesting area of research.

wa:do

 

[The_Evelyonian]

By me saying your sentence is laughable, I was dealing with what you said based on your own tactic, thus treating you how you treated me. So if ANYBODY used ad hom, it would have been YOU FIRST. How can you say that my sentence which was &#8220;your sentence is laughable&#8221; is ad hom and then not realize by you saying yourself &#8220;the idea of those machines being intelligent is laughable&#8221; is not ad hom? Is that not a double standard? Of course it is.

I never called anything you said laughable. I called the article you posted laughable. That was not a knock at you, just the article.

You can&#8217;t accuse me of the very thing you do yourself.

Make an argument against my point, don&#8217;t just say it&#8217;s laughable. Make an argument, come on.

I find you not making arguments THAT is laughable. It&#8217;s laughable that you think you saying what I have said is laughable is an argument. Because the fact is, it&#8217;s NOT an argument. Make an argument.

Saying it&#8217;s laughable is not an argument. And don&#8217;t come back and say &#8220;well I don&#8217;t need to make an argument against that since its laughable&#8221; because STILL THIS is a debate, to me it&#8217;s not laughable, so yes you do need to make an argument. And if your insistent on just sticking to &#8220;it&#8217;s laughable&#8221; that is willfully being unhelpful.

You continue to give me reasons to put you on ignore.

Ok, how do you know micro machines don&#8217;t have an intelligence? Or at least a programmed intelligence like a computer would have?

There's a difference between a cell being programmed and it having an intelligence.
A cell can carry out the instructions that its genetic code has programmed into it, but it has no awareness of doing this. Awareness is dependent on higher intelligence and micro machines are (AFAIK) incapable of that level of intelligence.

Ok, so how does it work, in regard to the micro machines?

The same way it works with everything else, mutation and natural selection

I don&#8217;t know what it is, but you do a poor job at addressing arguments.

ad hom.

By citing things you think are bad design, that does not REFUTE ACTUAL design, it just says some design is BAD design, that&#8217;s all it says. But doing that is not making an attempt to refute actual design.

So you think that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is good design?

For instance computers are designed, but if someone designs a virus to damage the computer, does that now make the computer which is damaged no longer designed? Of course not. Damage, or malfunction of a design, or even a poor design is STILL design.

It's a flawed analogy. If god created these things then we aren't dealing with a design that was sabotaged. We're dealing with something that was lousy from the get-go.

Plus I will address your point, which was not an argument AGAINST my point, because it was a argument against something I was not saying, thus it was a straw man. But none the less I will address it.

God makes all things a good design. Some of that design gets damaged, some of it malfunctions. Some of it gets WORN out. But from scratch, all of it was GOOD. There, problem solved.

And you can back this claim up, yes?

So it&#8217;s not God who is a poor designer or even an idiot, it&#8217;s you misunderstanding the point and misunderstanding the design and how or why it gets damaged. And that makes God an idiot? Maybe it&#8217;s the other way around.

Insults are where I draw the line, JB. Have a nice life.

 

[McBell]

Wow.
Ya'll must REALLY be bored.
I mean, to put up with Jollybear's nonsense for this long...

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Wow.
Ya'll must REALLY be bored.
I mean, to put up with Jollybear's nonsense for this long...

Well, Danmac and 301 can only provide so much entertainment.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It still does not work.
Once it thaws...

It was nailed in while it was frozen wasn't it?

 

[McBell]

It was nailed in while it was frozen wasn't it?

Ah..
So a quick short lived shallow "victory" is good enough for you?

 

[Jollybear]

Hi Evelyonian. I don't want to respond until you give me your full response, unless your finished? Or are you just taking your time? If so, I will wait.