The evidence puts that beyond a claim with the first snowfall.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is this scientific proof?
- Thread starter Jeremiah Ames
- Start date
I was reading this again and I don't think you mean naturalism creates, since that is just the philosophical view that states things have natural causes. The complex interactions exist and the evidence indicates that they are the result of natural causes. No one I know of has shown differently. Supernatural causes must have some evidence to support that they are the cause or there is nothing that can be said about them except "I believe".
No it does not. Naturalism creates interaction, no doubt (and often chaotic)….but not novel, beneficial complex interaction that we now observe within and between organisms.
If it did, there’d be no “explanatory deficits.”
(The first complex novelties, were created. You won’t accept that, will you?)
Yep….
Actually, the evidence from repeated experiments, show just the opposite. That mechanisms of natural forces, even under controlled conditions like w/ Drosophila melanogaster, creates nothing complex. The mutations were either neutral, or very deleterious…. Mostly deleterious.
And R. Lenski’s LTEE has only revealed that mutational benefits derived in one aspect of E. coli function, results in detrimental function in another aspect.
That’s the empirical evidence.
Speaking about ‘existence,’ made me think: You claim God exists. Does current science? No.
(If it did, it would not expend such great effort to ‘prove’ complex arrangements arose naturally.)
You disagree to some (little) extent with science.
Last edited:
Au contraire. The debunking is accomplished by explaining the mechanisms by which the flagellum could be built.
My "faith" is based on evidence and observation. so is not faith. The ToE is the best explanation we have for the observed facts.
And yet we know of beneficial mutations even in humans. Mutation and reproductive variation is often beneficial.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I see that you are still struggling with reality and distorting science.
Let's take the early fruit fly mutations. Those were not typical mutations. They were extreme mutations that were easily noticeable. At that time the technology to detect very minor mutations did not exist. They still taught us quite a lot, but those were ages before we could do genetic sequencing.
Now we can do that. As a result we know that well over 90% of all mutations are benign. A small percentage are negative and a smaller one are positive. Positive mutations are regularly observed. And negative one are eliminated through selection.
Are you still relying on dishonest sources?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Quite. As I recall, it was publicly aired - and blown out of the water by expert testimony - at the Dover School (Kitzmiller) trial. And that was back in 2005!
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
"The first complex novelties, were created. You won’t accept that, will you?"
When did you demonstrate it?
No it does not. The observations do not demonstrate a cause that cannot be established to be natural.
I do not disagree with science. Science makes no claims about God. Scientists may, but they are not science.
Natural causes. Naturalism is just a philosophical view.
You are moving the goal posts again. I wish you would stop doing that.
Complexity is seen to arise simply by the interaction of the properties of nature.
Novel is the new moving goal post.
But novel has been observed to arise in nature from natural causes.
Novel and complex are not the same.
Novel does not require complexity.
Methodological Naturalism can only falsify theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence. The subjective nature of theological/philosophical questions concerning the existence of God or Gods is not falsifiable by scientific methods.
DNA code has been falsified as having natural origins by the falsification of theories and hypothesis involving genetics and the evolution of life.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. I must have missed your post to me in October. Hope you are well.
I identified logical fallacies (incredulity, special pleading), so yes, that is an adequate rebuttal. He sees complexity and falsely concludes that that rules out naturalistic processes, and then proposes an even more complex deity to solve the complexity problem. Because his reasoning is faulty, his conclusion is invalid.
We know of no natural mechanism for a bicycle to organize itself the way we do for living things to do so. We see human beings (and other mammals) organizing themselves in the womb without intelligent oversight. The pieces organize themselves spontaneously. Almost everywhere we go, we find this process of life reproducing, growing, and developing occurring throughout earth. But no bicycles in those same places, since there is no natural mechanism for bicycles to self-organize. Look - here's worm next to this ocean floor vent, but no bicycles. And here's another worm living in the ice of this glacier, but still no bicycles in the glacier.
Bicycles and living things are fundamentally different. The absence of uncreated to bicycles is not an argument against the existence of uncreated life.
That's a claim. Where's the supporting argument?
The ID people tacitly acknowledged that complexity was not a sign of intelligence when they set out to find specified and irreducible complexity. They understood that there might be a naturalistic pathway from simple molecules to complex structures absent an intelligent input. The video above tacitly acknowledges the same when it chooses as an example writing on the beach.
It also goes there when it talks about the genetic code as if it were an artificial, manmade code, in which artificial symbols are used - symbols whose meanings are agreed upon by intelligent creatures (by convention). That's specified complexity, akin to writing on the beach. The genetic code is not conventional. It is physical. It accomplishes its goal without anybody having to agree on meaning. The meaning of codons is physically fixed by transfer RNA. It's no more a code than the poles on a magnet are. The attraction and repulsion of magnetized objects is not by convention. And that's how the elements of the genetic code are read by the biomolecules involved, as the attract and repel one another and in so doing, assemble proteins including some that attract and repel other biomolecules to function as enzymes or hormones. The "code" is inherent in the matter, and needs no more intelligence to read than opposite poles of a magnet need to pull at one another.
The genetic code is as radically different from an artificial code (manmade symbols the meanings of which are by convention and agreement) as natural law is from manmade law, also using symbols whose meanings are assigned and agreed upon. In each case, we have an example of natural mechanisms contrasted with specified complexity. Only one requires intelligence. When the last intelligent life is gone and there is nobody left to write or enforce artificial laws, natural laws will still be in effect. And when there is no one to write or decode conventional codes, the genetic code will still be read and written by unconscious structures obeying the laws of nature.
Irrelevant to the validity of the theory. The theory says that evolution occurs, and provides a mechanism. It does not predict any specific pathway more than to say that intermediate forms, if they have been preserved and can still be found, will show many characteristics of previous and subsequent forms. If you want to upend the theory, you need to provide falsifying evidence - a finding that proves that this process did not occur. It's not enough to say that the pathways haven't all been worked out. They may never be worked out if the necessary evidence no longer exists, just as your personal pedigree from some ancient ancestor.
Perhaps you are a descendant of King David. You are certainly descended from some of his contemporaries, if not the king himself. The evidence is insurmountable that this is true. Yet you may never be able to work out the precise pathway from ancestors living 1000 BCE to you today, because the necessary evidence may no longer exist. I'll bet that if we had the DNA of every one of your ancestors, we could sequence them and identify you grandparents, your great-grandparents, your great-great-grandparents, and all the way back, as the genetic code becomes less like your own.
But even if that remains impossible, even if no pathway is ever discovered from then to now in your family tree, we do not have grounds to challenge the theory of Hockey Cowboy's personal evolution from human ancestors. It happened even if the pathway cannot be elucidated, as did all biological evolution connecting our most ancient ancestors (the original living, replicating cell population and last universal common ancestor of all life on earth).
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Which is a demonstrably false argument.
Simple things become more complex all the time under the influence of basic forces of physics.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Nope.
There is however MUCH evidence that simple things become more complex all the time, without any need for any "intelligence" being a factor in any part of the process.
When 2 H atoms and an O atom bond together to form H2O, then we have a rise in complexity.
No intelligence required. Instead, just the simple and blind forces and processes of physics.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Intelligence and ignorance, deal with different subjects.
You can be intelligent and ignorant.
More importantly, your question shows how you completely miss the point.
That point being: a rise in complexity happens all the time in nature, no intervention by an intelligent agent required at all.
I see that that is only a belief, a claim, that is not reflected in this reality, it is not logical that creation is not founded on intelligence.
If that was so, any invention of man, could in theory, come into being from the natural process, no levels of intelligence would be needed.
Regards Tony
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Dude.........................
I already gave you an example to which you initially replied.
When 2 H atoms and an O atom combine into an H2O atom, then we have a rise in complexity.
No "intelligence" required. Just the blind forces of physics.
No "mere belief". No "claims". Just plain old observable demonstrable fact.
Talk about only making claims and having only beliefs........................
That makes no sense whatseover.
You're not even comparing apples with oranges.
You're comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.
Here's the implied "argument" of that rather ignorant statement:
- artificial objects created by man exist
- objects not created by man exist
- therefor all objects are artificial
I shouldn't have to explain how ....(*) that is.
(*) I used '....' because the word I wanted to use, was not that nice and would get filtered anyway.
Where? Which systems? Name some that are beneficial, not destructive.