Jump to content

semlogo

Contributor
  • Posts

    1,693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by semlogo

  1. You are predicting the future by events in the past. That is called faith -- that "eventually" science/evolution will answer all questions. That is not science ==>> You are merely stating a creed, a statement of faith.

    My faith is that science and religion are compatible, and that Divinity uses natural laws. The unanswered questions will be resolved by an understanding and combination of both -- that we are beginning to understand natural laws even as God understands them. That we will be able to change water into wine.

    It's a statement of probability, not faith. There is an long chain of of natural explanations for phenomena formerly thought to be supernatural. There is not a single example of an event successfully explained by supernatural causes.

    Faith and science are indeed compatible, but they are difference spheres. Science is not, however, compatible with the pseudo science of intelligent design, which cannot even muster a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory.

  2. I haven't postulated a devine intervention. The point of the article was that it was improbable that it occurred using purely natural means. It could be sourced from an alien or devine, don't think it really matters to science one way or the other. What we can detect is that it was most likely not from natural sources.

    Cautious mean to me that we admit to ourselves how much we don't know. And when the software (information) is demonstrably *not* derived from the organics then it would seem to me that it must be sourced elsewhere.

    I agree that extreme caution is warranted when making any sorts of claims.

    As I have already demonstrated however, we already know that at least a portion of our "software" came from natural, non-living entities (viruses). There is no evidence, in fact, that anything that exists on earth did not come from natural sources.

  3. You need to make that your sig line, hehe I have seen it a jillion times.

    The evidence is all there, you just have to actually have a little faith and open your eyes to the literal mountains of evidence.

    Unfortunately these "mountains of evidence" evaporate into mist when subjected to the least bit of scrutiny.

  4. I'm all for being cautious. Claiming that the physics we observe today "created" the intelligence that we enjoy isn't being cautious in my view, rather as I've said it's a display of one's beliefs not science. It's like saying that your computer software is derived from the silicone that make up the guts of the machine.

    Where is it ever demonstrated that this principle is a work? That the software (information stored on DNA) is derived from the hardware (organic compounds) itself?

    In the recorded history of humanity, every time a gap in knowledge has been filled with (postulated) direct divine intervention, it has been eventually filled with a naturalistic explanation once knowledge increased. It is incautious to postulate that this time the explanation will be divine intervention. It is not incautious to postulate that the explanation will once again be naturalistic, as seems to always be the case. That doesn't mean that divine intervention as explanation for natural phenomena is not possible. It just means it's unlikely.

    By software do you mean information? It's true that information is not physical, but information is encoded and transmitted physically.

    Non-life HAS demonstrably contributed to our software, in the form of retroviral endogenization. That is to say, we have coding in our DNA that originated from retroviruses that infected the reproductive cells of our non-human ancestors. This new coding was passed on to their offspring, and some of it remains a part of human DNA today.

  5. I haven't any more time to waste on this discussion. I have already told you I don't really care. However I do care when you continually misrepresent me. I have posted that I do not support a young earth yet you continue to insinuate that I do. Please cease the misrepresentation. By the way are you from Lome Linda?

    I haven't represented you in any way, let alone misrepresented you. You read personal insult into everything I say, where none is intended.

  6. Indeed it hasn't been observed to occur. As you first link admits.

    "How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory."

    And your second link explains it for even a layman to understand.

    "DNA is the software of life, the molecules that pack all the genetic information of a cell."

    In essence, the claim of naturalistic evolutionist is that the software of life was written by the mere physics we observe today. Yet we don't know exactly how it occured. Not withstanding that the software of life is twice as complex (being quaternary, not binary) as the software that our computers are using.

    Organic compounds DO form spontaneously.

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

    We do not know all the details about the formation of life from organic chemicals, as these are not the sorts of things preserved in a fossil record. Let's be cautious about making arguments from that ignorance, though.

  7. Even the laws of physics are only safe in the bounds of set parameters. i.e. dating techniques are only valid if you assume a constant, unchanging

    Young earth only works if you assume (without evidence) that constants are not constants.

    Physics doesn't stop working just because some people read Genesis literally.

    Examples Please

    Examples are in my previous response to Ahab.

  8. No one disagrees with the idea that the laws of physics have continued to work as they do today. What is missing is clear evidence that the laws of physics are capable of creating life, or even intelligent life.

    Chemical processes probably CAN create life, but again, this is outside the purview of the study of evolution

    So, from "safe" assumptions, our world view leads us to our claim of "unsafe" assumptions, such as claiming that "The building blocks of DNA arise spontaneously" which somehow lead to an intelligent being.

    That and much more has been observed to occur. It's not an assumption.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

    http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

    The existences of modern viruses, which are somewhere in between true life and non-life, should make it obvious that life can arise naturally from chemical processes. The boundary between life and non-life is fuzzy, not sharp.

  9. Now would be a fine time for you to clear up any misrepresentation you see, or think you see. Just remember to KISS, or keep it simple... well, you probably already know what I meant.

    I've already pointed out several, such as:

    Claiming that evolution covers the jump from non-life to life

    Claiming that evolution teaches an animal will give birth to a different species

    Claiming that evolution relies on a religious-like faith

    Claiming that evolution is anti-God

  10. Proof of intelligent design is observed in the fact that things like DNA are known to not arise on their own without planning and design beforehand. Evolutionists swear in the reality of chemical evolution but yet fail in every attempt to prove it. All they have proven and continue to uphold is the reality that things like DNA show elements of design, purpose and intelligence of the which DO NOT RISE on their own.

    I dont care what you state about evolution and the origins of life being separate, you absolutely will find no class in high school or college that teaches basic biology that doesnt include theories on the origins of life in the evolution section of the biology book or class. Evolution DOES INCLUDE theories on the origins of life.

    The building blocks of DNA arise spontaneously. The appearance of design and actual intentional design are two very different things.

    Biology is a broader topic than evolution. It is not surprising that a biology textbook would mention abiogenesis AND evolution. But what evolution deniers refuse to believe, even though they've been told many times, is that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate fields of study. I don't know what impedes this information from sinking into your awareness.

  11. You are probably right, but then this topic is not high on my priority list. What does bother me is the attitude some have that if you do not believe in evolution you are an ignorant savage that doesn't read.

    I see evolution deniers misrepresenting evolution. That indicates either a lack of reading or reading scurrilous sources of information.

  12. You forgot those tests, and the testability of the earths age, rely on a goodly number of assumptions which may or may not be valid assumptions.

    Safe assumptions, like the laws of physics continuing to work even when inconvenient to one's interpretation of scripture.

  13. No the focus of my replies is to get you to see that your dogma is not as set in in concrete as you seem to believe. As I have stated earlier I do not care about evolution. What I care about is the attitude that it is all over but the party and that everybody else better get in line.

    I don't recognize your caricature of me.

  14. And I have a bit of difficulty taking anyone seriously whose elitist attitude leads them to denigrate someone who disagrees with them.

    Those who cannot defend the argument attack the man. I have denigrated no one.

  15. You don't have to go very far to see evidence for the way things really happened, and still happen.

    Like begats like. That's what we see all around us. You've got a fairy tale idea that some kind of being begat another kind of being, and you have NO evidence for that idea.

    Yes, you're right, but evolution also posit that like begets like. A tyrannosaur does not give birth to a chicken one day. You've been watching too many creationist banana videos.

    When I see people who are hostile to evolution consistently misrepresenting it like this, it tells me that much of the opposition to evolution is coming out of a place of ignorance - they do not understand what evolution is, and therefore are unable to articulate a reasoned (or at least, reasonable) critique of it. Unfortunately creationist/ID websites propagate misconceptions about evolution.

  16. The data are the data.

    How one interprets the data is where people have diverging opinions. One's interpretation rests on one's world view and/or faith or belief. IF one is persuaded that our Earth is 4.6 billion years old, then when reviewing this new data, the obvious conclusion is exactly as this scientist stated, "showing us we really don’t understand decay". However, if one believes the Earth isn't old, but very young by comparison, then the data confirms their suspicion and is what they would expect to find.

    Neither position is scientific or testable, it simply is their world view talking, or their faith if you will.

    The age of the earth is testable, and is based on repeatable, testable, internally-consistent laws of physics. Faith has nothing to do with it.

    The data do not support a young earth.

  17. In the immortal words of Rhett Butler to Scarlett O'Hara "Frankly my dear I don't give a d..." what you want to believe concerning this issue.

    What I believe is what is demonstrable with good evidence. I know that some people prefer to ignore evidence and instead follow crackpots and fringe groups. Such groups can be seductive but ultimately fail the sniff test.

  18. Alien tinkering is a way of taking the chance out of evolution. It is a form of evolutionary thought. Really a form of ID replacing God with aliens but all safely in the evolutionary camp.

    If you are going to assume a superior education positions you really ought to learn to spell better or at least get somebody to show you how to use spell check.

    The drivers of evolution are random mutation and natural selection based on environmental pressures. You might as well posit guided chemical reactions. It would fail the test of parsimony just as quickly.

  19. I resent your false assumptions and elitist attitude. I have not stated my position but only pointed out the shortcomings of your own position. You respond with a closed minded dogmatism that I am not educated enough to discuss this with you. The arrogant learn nothing. Not because there is nothing to learn but because they don't recognize there own shortcomings.

    My position is the mainstream scientific position and can be defended with decades of harmonious, internally-consistent evidence. Offer something similar and you will find me very open minded indeed.

  20. Alien tinkering has as much solid evidence as evolution. In fact it is just an evolutionary variation. Evolution simply does deal with origins of life. That is what it is about. How did it all come about.

    There is no evidence for alien tinkering. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. You are simply ill informed on this issue.

    The study of the origins of life is called abiogenesis.

  21. Perhaps you could explain how it is possible that soft tissue can even survive in any condition in the earth for 50+ million years. You certainly cant escape the fact that the soft tissue contains carbon, so why don't they carbon date it?

    The limit for carbon dating is about 62,000 years.

    If you want to learn about soft tissue embedded in fossils, I suggest you seek out reputable sources, not fringe ID sites.

    http://www.smithsoni...e/dinosaur.html

    “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

    Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

    ...

    In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.

    ...

    Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

    Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

    This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

  22. I have no misunderstanding of "evidence". Scientists can indeed replicate certain principles and laws found in the solar system. Those are instances of true evidence and correct scientific theory. How the solar system was formed is more philisophical theory just as evolution is at this point. The hard evidence for both lack scientific credibility by their own definitions.

    Science can replicate "certain principles" of evolution in the lab as well. But of course evidence that supports evolution does not exist in your reality.

×
×
  • Create New...