Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Tiberius]

Sorry, was I not supposed to mention that abiogenesis is also a branch of science? Its no further forward in explaining how life originated than it ever was. Why do you suppose that is? Its funny to me how evolutionists are so quick to divorce themselves from the subject....they run a mile at the mere mention of how life began.....what is the point of arguing how life changed if you have no idea how it got here?

By all means, feel free to mention that abiogenesis is a branch of science.

That doesn't mean it's relevant to a discussion about evolution. I mean you wouldn't start talking about electrical theory in a discussion about newtonian physics, even though they're both sciences, right?

There is no proof that single celled organisms morphed into more complex living creatures....that is an unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing but suggestion.

Care to support that allegation? Because there's quite a bit of evidence that it wasn't that difficult.

The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all | Science | AAAS

Evolution of Multicellular Life Might Have Been Easier Than We Thought

Natural selection is definitely seen in nature but it does not answer the question of how a microscopic single cell somehow found a way to change itself into a creature the size of a three story building! Apparently all you have to do is throw a few million years into the equation. Its the very foundation upon which evolution is built, but the cracks open up under scrutiny. If your foundation is flimsy, how is the building going to keep standing?

Why do you think evolution can't account for it? What limitation do you think there was?

In any case, it's not that hard to go from single cell to something much bigger. You did it yourself. And it only took nine months.

Adaptation within a related family of creatures is nothing close to what is suggested by science at the very beginning. Yet that is what they base their theory upon. Who can they go back and ask?....the fossils? Sorry but they ain't sayin' much. Besides which fact that scientists can make them say whatever they wish.

And what exactly is the difference in the mechanism?

And would you care to support your claim that a scientist can make a fossil say whatever he wants?

Evidence is not proof....but proof is evidence.....and science is very light on when it comes to showing us how the earliest processes of their evolutionary chain took place.

Your word games are unimpressive and while they sound important, they mean nothing.

If proof is evidence then it can't be proof because you just said that evidence is not proof, and you just admitted that proof is evidence. So as evidence, proof can not be proof.

You need more than fancy slogans to make a point here.

 

[exchemist]

How does one prove scientifically if something is a miracle if miracles by their nature shouldnt be able to be examined by science? I would think that they would try and disprove certain scientific conclusions and then make an appeal from ignorance.

I have seen professors, doctors and engineers who support ID but they make an appeal from ignorance. Also i do not know their credibility in the fields that support the ToE. Michael Behe is one that comes to mind.

Since these professionals apply existing knowledge rather than studying the workings of nature, using them to promote the idea would be an effective deception to the ignorant because they would view them as intelligent and involved in science and assume that they know what they are talking about.

That's rather interesting.

They set great store by a bogus concept they call "irreducible complexity". This is the notion that there are systems in organisms that cannot, so they say, have arisen by natural evolution. This is because, according to them, the system requires the presence of a number of component parts which would have had no evolutionary advantage on their own. Thus, they say, the individual components can't have evolved progressively, to be available for incorporation into the full system, as the next step in an evolutionary process. So, they say, their hypothetical "designer" must have done it, by supernatural intervention.

They have declared various systems "irreducibly complex" over the years. At one time it was the eye. But when researchers showed how the components of the eye can have come together (the eye has evolved independently at least three times, by the way), they gave that up and moved on to the flagellar motor. This actually got reviewed at the 2005 Dover School court case, in which expert testimony showed that actually there is evidence for an evolutionary route to that too, arising from a cellular secretory system. There was even an attempt to give "irreducible complexity" a mathematical basis, developed by a mathematician called Dembski.

The common feature of these arguments however is that they rely on a negative: the supposed absence of a credible evolutionary origin. The weakness of that is it is not positive evidence of anything, just a supposed lack of it. It is thus simply the old "God of the Gaps" idea, dressed up in scientific language.

 

[McBell]

I thought it was time for another thread on the wonders of creation.

That last thread was some time ago...it did pretty well.....

Replies: 5,484
Views: 154,028

You forgot the very last post:

*** THREAD LOCKED ***

Because the staff team is sick and tired of seeing reports from this thread.​

Seems that thread was for people to feel persecuted and the staff got tired of listening to it....

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's rather interesting.

They set great store by a bogus concept they call "irreducible complexity". This is the notion that there are systems in organisms that cannot, so they say, have arisen by natural evolution. This is because, according to them, the system requires the presence of a number of component parts which would have had no evolutionary advantage on their own. Thus, they say, the individual components can't have evolved progressively, to be available for incorporation into the full system, as the next step in an evolutionary process. So, they say, their hypothetical "designer" must have done it, by supernatural intervention.

They have declared various systems "irreducibly complex" over the years. At one time it was the eye. But when researchers showed how the components of the eye can have come together (the eye has evolved independently at least three times, by the way), they gave that up and moved on to the flagellar motor. This actually got reviewed at the 2005 Dover School court case, in which expert testimony showed that actually there is evidence for an evolutionary route to that too, arising from a cellular secretory system. There was even an attempt to give "irreducible complexity" a mathematical basis, developed by a mathematician called Dembski.

The common feature of these arguments however is that they rely on a negative: the supposed absence of a credible evolutionary origin. The weakness of that is it is not positive evidence of anything, just a supposed lack of it. It is thus simply the old "God of the Gaps" idea, dressed up in scientific language.

I think that I actually was temptes to use irredicible complexity as an argument when I was religious.

But I was hesitant to use it because at the back of my mind complex economic systems and civilisations could be used as examples to counter this reasoning.

For instance smaller independent economic systems once worked autonomously in their respective nations. But now that they have joined a more complex worldwide economic system their survival is dependent on other nations economies. For instance South Africas economy plummeted because of Covid 19 before the virus impacted SA directly, and this was because of the directly impacted economic systems and trading systems in China, Europe and America.

A nation can start off self sufficient, but as soon as it becomes part of a more complex system of other nations and offloads its needs to other nations, it cannot survive on its own anymore.

That is how I see it but I could be very wrong.

 

[Thief]

The "lawmaker" of the "laws" are HUMANS.

and He said to Moses.....

tell the people.....I AM!
and they with understanding will know Whose law this is

as for physical law
that too

 

[Revoltingest]

Hang on...how come we have jumped from gases to organisms?

Are you made of gas? Does Mrs Revoltingest think so? (better not answer that)

Gases & life are both systems.
The former is very simple, so it's useful to explain my perspective
about system behaviors being explained by factors acting upon them.

I marvel at the perfection of the creatures I posted...these are not shots in the dark or close enough to the real McCoy, but perfect replicas of the their environments.....I can't see how that takes place accidentally. If you study the pictures closely, you will see absolute mimicry.

I understand, & marvel at them too.

There is no real evidence (proof) that evolution on the macro scale ever took place.

We differ on what constitutes proof....or more appropriately, "evidence".

We clearly see adaptation, but this is confined to one family of related creatures....it never takes any creature out of, or beyond its taxonomy. If evolution were true then many species morphed into completely different creatures. (see whale evolution as an example) The theory is based on assumptions and suggestions about what "may have"..."might have"..."could have" taken place in the past. But since no one was there to document the process, science is left with bits of circumstantial evidence, the pieces of which they have cleverly strung together to tell the story without any concrete proof ever being offered. They "believe" that it happened that way. I "believe" that the Creator designed his families of creatures with the ability to adapt and to create many new varieties within those families. This is the only part of evolution that they can actually prove. To suggest that adaptation can go beyond that is mere speculation.....based on pure imagination.

Darwin did not observe evolution on the Galapagos Islands.....he saw adaptation....and ran away with an idea.

When science tells you that it has "mountains of evidence"....it really has 'mountains' of suggestions and unprovable assertions.

Evolution can be observed in real time on computer simulations.
Biological evolution with great speciation occurs over time frames
longer than our lifetimes. So instead of observing it directly, we
must look at the fossil record.

Many things cannot be seem with our own eyes happening right
in front of us. But we can observe in other ways which are
consistent. The fossil record, radioactive decay, DNA, & other
things can be tested to form a coherent picture.

Astronomy has long since changed from something we can see
with our eyes, to observation by other methods...typically yielding
highly processed pictures on a computer screen. We observe
by X-rays, infrared light, & now even gravity waves. But we
can't "see" what we observe in the old conventional sense.

Some believe that modern science is a house of cards built
upon a shaky imagined foundation. But it is more useful than
any alternative.

 

[exchemist]

I think that I actually was temptes to use irredicible complexity as an argument when I was religious.

But I was hesitant to use it because at the back of my mind complex economic systems and civilisations could be used as examples to counter this reasoning.

For instance smaller independent economic systems once worked autonomously in their respective nations. But now that they have joined a more complex worldwide economic system their survival is dependent on other nations economies. For instance South Africas economy plummeted because of Covid 19 before the virus impacted SA directly, and this was because of the directly impacted economic systems and trading systems in China, Europe and America.

A nation can start off self sufficient, but as soon as it becomes part of a more complex system of other nations and offloads its needs to other nations, it cannot survive on its own anymore.

That is how I see it but I could be very wrong.

It sounds as if your intuition at that time was sound. It is false to say that just because someone, at a given point in the history of ideas, cannot see how something can have happened naturally, it therefore cannot have happened naturally. People get more data and theories develop.

Dawkins gave a rather good name to that kind of argument: the "Argument from Personal Incredulity". This is a play on the name of the older "Argument from Design" (for the existence of God), first put forward by William Paley in the c.18th.

As a matter of interest, I think I read somewhere that it was Cardinal Newman once pointed out that the Christian who bases his faith on such arguments is at risk of having it destroyed by future advances in science!

 

[Etritonakin]

The same applies accross the board.
We recognise design by contrasting what we know about manufacturing against natural processes.
This requires knowledge of both.



Yet we can recognise molecules that are of unnatural origin.



Then either we understand the manufacturing process that can produce it, or the answer is "we don't know how it was produced". At which point it could be a natural process we do not understand yet OR it was artificially manufactured.



The "purpose" of an object plays little to no role at all in the detection of design / manufacturing.

The post you are replying to, describes how design is detected. You might not agree for some reason, but surely you've noticed that any potential or possible "purpose" of the object in question, was not part of my criteria?



I don't see why.
You are most welcome and invited to lay out your reasons.

But I have a feeling it will come down to an argument from ignorance.
I'ld love to be proven wrong on that.

When people first look at such things as the antikythera mechanism (or an automobile, etc.), they do not mistake them for naturally-occurring things because tool marks are not immediately apparent. Complex purpose and function are apparent -the necessity of mental capacity to produce is apparent -then they consider such things as manufacturing processes.
If, then, the manufacturing process were found to be automated, it would be understood that such indicated greater mental capacity and ability -not less.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would indeed be interesting to see the fleshed out details of the Genesis account.

What you say about the starvation and death doesnt sound like the ideal environment.

Of course it is speculation, but without predators to help moderate populations, other factors would come into play. It would become a cycle of supply and demand. I suppose diseases could take the place of predators, but those would have to evolve too.

I am not completely convinced that Genesis says that all life was vegetarian in the beginning. It could be interpreted that plants were provided for food, but it does not directly state that eating was to be limited to plants only.

 

[Etritonakin]

The same applies accross the board.
We recognise design by contrasting what we know about manufacturing against natural processes.
This requires knowledge of both.



Yet we can recognise molecules that are of unnatural origin.



Then either we understand the manufacturing process that can produce it, or the answer is "we don't know how it was produced". At which point it could be a natural process we do not understand yet OR it was artificially manufactured.



The "purpose" of an object plays little to no role at all in the detection of design / manufacturing.

The post you are replying to, describes how design is detected. You might not agree for some reason, but surely you've noticed that any potential or possible "purpose" of the object in question, was not part of my criteria?



I don't see why.
You are most welcome and invited to lay out your reasons.

But I have a feeling it will come down to an argument from ignorance.
I'ld love to be proven wrong on that.

First....

When considering the origins of the universe, elements, production of myriad environments, emergence and diversity of life, etc., it is SEEMINGLY more a matter of argument on any side from lack of reference.

However, there is reference. The reference is all around us. That which now exists is that which did exist -and the basic languages of reality -math, logic, etc - are now known to us -which is why man was able to reverse-engineer the universe to a certain point. However, there has not been much actual interest in reverse-engineering beyond that point -because that point has usually been considered "the beginning" -and it is simply assumed that the beginning in question (or not being questioned) was completely "natural".

In our present state of that which exists, we see that in order to produce something not otherwise possible, our mental capacity and ability are necessary -and that which requires such to produce is indicative of such. When considering the universe and all therein, not only is there little interest in how it came to be in reference to the "simplicity" which would logically be expected "in the beginning" (even the singularity must have been anything but simple -a mechanism which transformed that which was into specifically that which is), but there seems to be purposeful refusal to consider THE USUAL SUSPECT.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no such thing as a proven theory.
A proven theory cannot exist, because once it’s proven, it’s no longer a theory.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth.
A scientific fact is not a fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true..

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

There is no such thing as a proven religion either. ID has no proof or evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First....

When considering the origins of the universe, elements, production of myriad environments, emergence and diversity of life, etc., it is SEEMINGLY more a matter of argument on any side from lack of reference.

However, there is reference. The reference is all around us. That which now exists is that which did exist -and the basic languages of reality -math, logic, etc - are now known to us -which is why man was able to reverse-engineer the universe to a certain point. However, there has not been much actual interest in reverse-engineering beyond that point -because that point has usually been considered "the beginning" -and it is simply assumed that the beginning in question (or not being questioned) was completely "natural".

In our present state of that which exists, we see that in order to produce something not otherwise possible, our mental capacity and ability are necessary -and that which requires such to produce is indicative of such. When considering the universe and all therein, not only is there little interest in how it came to be in reference to the "simplicity" which would logically be expected "in the beginning" (even the singularity must have been anything but simple -a mechanism which transformed that which was into specifically that which is), but there seems to be purposeful refusal to consider THE USUAL SUSPECT.

The arguments of science are not against God or some form of creator. There is simply no evidence that points to one or any for consideration. The arguments are based on the evidence and observations that are available. Adding causes that are not based on some evidence would be lying.

 

[Etritonakin]

Just some thoughts about some points made...

Though not widely believed, the words in the book of Genesis mention the creation of the heavens and Earth, then the Earth HAVING BECOME waste and ruin to a mostly-unspecified degree before that which followed. It is in no way against the idea of an old Earth, evolution, etc. -or even humans prior to Adam/outside of Eden.

"Perfect environment" is not really a consideration until there are beings able to consider affects to be adverse, to suffer, empathize, etc. -which leads to the ideas of cessation of suffering and of death itself.
Otherwise, the life/death cycle allows for adaptation over successive generations -as well as extreme diversity -which we find fascinating and beautiful -while recycling materials in a closed system.
If there is no actual suffering or consideration of such things, there is no real issue.

Though I don't think it is stated or hinted at in Genesis itself, it should be noted that in the same collection of writings there is mention of a future change to the nature of human and animal life which was scheduled from the beginning -also indicating that the present state (allowance of suffering, drawing out of empathy) is considered to exist for a purpose until that time.

Isa 11:6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nature did these, soulless Mother Nature, accidentally created diverse and beautiful beings. Everyone knows macro-Evolution is not only godless but soulless.

Evolution is neither of those things. It's just a natural process that occurs on the planet we live on. It is as "soulless" as the movement of tectonic plates or erosion, for instance.

Mother Nature accidentally created horrible and ugly things as well. Or in your view, your god did.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you always this skillful at interpreting the statements of those you disagree with?

Allowing something to happen, even if its painful is not the same as causing it.

Let me illustrate....
I you had a child with a genetic abnormality and doctors confirm that surgery will correct it with no lasting after effects...would you permit it? The doctor tells you that it is a very painful procedure that will need to be done in stages and the recovery period will be quite lengthy. Do you toss up whether the pain is worth it?.....Does the end result justify the pain? A painful experience, if it teaches you something, can be an advantage.

The Bible says that God was put in that position by a rebellious spirit creature who challenged his right to rule his intelligent creation, inferring that he was a lousy parent and that they would become like God if they knew good and evil for themselves. Was he right? God could have zapped the rebels out of existence and started again, but what would that have proven...only that God is more powerful. He allowed all the rebels to experience what they had chosen of their own free will. And the world we live in is the result, as God knew it would be. We apparently can't be told....we have to learn the hard way....but sometimes that is the best way to prove a point. I think that humans have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they are incapable of self rule. Tell me when humans have ever had good incorrupt rulers?

It's called following your argument/assertion to its logical conclusion. You should try it sometime.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Much of theoretical science is not based on anything but speculation and educated guessing. As for "reason"...that is wide open to interpretation as well. My reasoning is not your reasoning. We shall all find out sooner or later whose position was reasonable and whose wasn't.



Nothing happens for no reason. Cause and effect states that whatever you see happening is the effect of a cause.
The Bible gives me purpose and reason.....it is very acceptable to me, but it might not be to you. That's OK.



Because that is the way our brains are wired. What do you think science is for? Isn't it to formulate a reason for all the "whys"? You turn to science for your answers....I turn to the Bible for mine. You have questions you can't answer because science can't provide anything but suggestions on many of its theories....but I don't have gaps in my understanding.

It is actually very satisfying not to have to rely on man for the future of planet Earth.

If you have to make up your own reasoning and logic, then you aren't doing reasoning and logic right.

 

[exchemist]

Just some thoughts about some points made...

Though not widely believed, the words in the book of Genesis mention the creation of the heavens and Earth, then the Earth HAVING BECOME waste and ruin to a mostly-unspecified degree before that which followed. It is in no way against the idea of an old Earth, evolution, etc. -or even humans prior to Adam/outside of Eden.

"Perfect environment" is not really a consideration until there are beings able to consider affects to be adverse, to suffer, empathize, etc. -which leads to the ideas of cessation of suffering and of death itself.
Otherwise, the life/death cycle allows for adaptation over successive generations -as well as extreme diversity -which we find fascinating and beautiful -while recycling materials in a closed system.
If there is no actual suffering or consideration of such things, there is no real issue.

Though I don't think it is stated or hinted at in Genesis itself, it should be noted that in the same collection of writings there is mention of a future change to the nature of human and animal life which was scheduled from the beginning -also indicating that the present state (allowance of suffering, drawing out of empathy) is considered to exist for a purpose until that time.

Isa 11:6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

But do you think this poetic imagery as intended to be taken literally or metaphorically? The Old Testament writers frequently make use of repetition, in slightly different words, to emphasise a point. I see this passage as evocative of a heavenly state of peace in which all strife, anxiety and danger will be gone, the juxtaposition of the pairs of animals which are normally antagonists being chosen to make the point. The little child might even look forward to the infant Christ at Bethlehem.

 

[exchemist]

When people first look at such things as the antikythera mechanism (or an automobile, etc.), they do not mistake them for naturally-occurring things because tool marks are not immediately apparent. Complex purpose and function are apparent -the necessity of mental capacity to produce is apparent -then they consider such things as manufacturing processes.
If, then, the manufacturing process were found to be automated, it would be understood that such indicated greater mental capacity and ability -not less.

I agree one does not need to see tool marks. However, as you say, design is imputed on the basis of assumed purpose. It is a teleological argument.

That is exactly why attempting to see design in nature is not a scientific approach. Science does not assume purpose in nature. So "design" cannot have any meaning in the scientific study of nature.

This is one of several reasons why Intelligent Design is not science.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution is neither of those things. It's just a natural process that occurs on the planet we live on. It is as "soulless" as the movement of tectonic plates or erosion, for instance.

Mother Nature accidentally created horrible and ugly things as well. Or in your view, your god did.

I don't understand how you can say X is ugly and Y is beautiful. These seem like subjective viewpoints.

 

[cladking]

Evolution is neither of those things. It's just a natural process that occurs on the planet we live on. It is as "soulless" as the movement of tectonic plates or erosion, for instance.

Really!!!?

You are suggesting that individuals and individual consciousness has no role in the determination of change in species.

It is painfully obvious that individual decisions affect every aspect of individual lives and the effects of individuals on change in species are profound even over the lifetime of the individual and become far more important with each succeeding generation.

If nothing we do has any affect on the future then why are we even here? Do people just live out their lives waiting to see what it brings? Who makes their coffee in the morning?