Putting God's Design In Perspective

[tas8831]

I already provided a source that shows that 3 million mutations where crucial (ie beneficial) in the evolution of humans, what else do you want?.

No, you did not. The article you referred to indicated that this 3 million "may" contain relevant mutations:

"However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome."

But no, you go ahead and keep embellishing this one result of your keyword search technique.

Still waiting for you to explain how many fixed beneficial mutations are required for any trait you choose. But that would require you to understand how genes and development work, so...

Anyway, even if all 3 million were totally beneficial, that is different from 50,000 being "too few" or whichever number you are dreaming up today.

An analogy - a human needs, say, 500 calories a day to survive. If that human takes in 1000 calories, they will survive and then some.
Get it?

But thanks for undercutting the whole "Haldane's dilemma' thing, which only allows for a couple thousand.
I am sure creationists like ReMine will welcome the news that you have destroyed their careers.

... Your supposed "reply" is pathetic missleading and dishonest .... Then you disguised your answer with a long series of irrelevant strawman arguments personal attacks irrelevant stuff and other red herrings

But hey this is an open forum , anyone can see your reply and judge whether if I provided a good response or not.

You're a funny guy - creationist tactic #72 - when you are getting spanked, try to set yourself up as a brave martyr...

Granted, my mistake was assuming that you where a selectionist , implying that most (or atleast a big portion) of mutations would have to be positive. But ok now I know that you are a neutralist.

You mean you understand that I accept the evidence that most mutations are neutral.

But you still have to explain the 3 million mutations that where benefitial. 50,000 is still too few.

So cute how your whole argument has changed - but not as cute as how you keep misrepresenting that article.

What really impressed me is that in your mind you actually think that you made a valid point.

How do you go from "achondroplasia" to "therefore 50,000 mutations are enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans? And there is no room for reasonable doubt anyone that question my dogma is stupid"

Golly, I thought I explained it pretty well - maybe if I paste in in bold?

1. There really are no 'brand new' traits that humans possess that chimps do not, indicating that our common ancestor also that the same basic traits

2. Therefore, we only need to "tweak" existing traits, and tweaking an existing trait does NOT require some large number of beneficial mutations

3. Support for this - point mutation in the FGFR-3 gene causing achondroplasia - altered limb-to-trunk proportion, altered facial characteristics, reduced joints, etc. All from one mutation. Reminder - I am NOT presenting this as a beneficial mutation, just the reality that MULTIPLE phenotypic traits can be altered, in this case, by a single mutation.

The fact that you seem so sure that 50,000 mutations are enough made me believe that you had something better.

The fact that you cannot tell us all how many fixed beneficial mutations are required for ANY of the unnamed traits that had to have been affected tells me that you have nothing but rhetoric and misrepresentation.

The problem is that you where supposed to show a benefitial mutation.

Was I?

Tell you what, Skipper - here is a link to the Human Genome browser:

UCSC Genome Browser Home


Take your impressive genetics knowledge and do what no other creationist has even tried to do -

FIND A BENEFICIAL MUTATION in there. For any trait you believe had to have been altered by such. Go ahead. Then explain to me how many such mutations were required for that trait to be what it is in humans and how it differed from a common ancestor.
I can wait. I've been waiting for ReMine to do it for 25 years.

.... Or even more specifically you are suppose to show that benefitial mutations usually tend to alter multiple traits.

Many, if not most mutations do this - you would know this if you were not so ignorant of the subject matter. Look up Pleiotropy.

If you could show that a single mutation was responsable for multiple benefitial traits like bipedalism, brain size, and language etc you would have a point....

If you understood basic genetics, you would realize that you don't have a point.
Why would you think that I think that 'traits' like brain size AND bipedality would be affected by a single mutation?

In the achondroplasia example, the obvious implication was that a single mutation can affect LIMB development (among other things) - LIMBS are made up of bones, muscle, nerves, skin, etc. I know of many creationists that have insisted that each of those (bones, skin, etc.) would all REQUIRE their own specific beneficial mutations.
This is stupid. Do you admit that altering a limb would NOT require a suite of specific mutations governing every aspect of the a limb?

BTW, I can also provide examples of traits that require more than 1 mutation, I don't know why would this be relevant, but if in your mind this would dispute your claim I would be happy to provide an example. ...

Please do - but do admit that you understand that it is not universal, seeing as how I have shown this is not the case.

Let me guess - you will be paraphrasing or linking to Behe's big blunders?


Oh - a reminder that in a post you ran away from, I spanked you on yet another issue:

Putting God's Design In Perspective


...

Answer this honestly - does all of your knowledge of genetics come from creationist websites?

It looks like you are completely unaware of the following:

1. The timing of gene expression can produce phenotypic modifications during development

2. the extent of expression can alter phenotype

3. 1 and 2 above do not require ANY change to the coding gene involved at all.

Here is an example:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.

"Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

So, what happened here is that a transposon inserted itself in promoter/enhancer region of a gene and caused it to be over-expressed. This conferred an adaptive benefit, now fixed in these populations of Drosophila.

Single mutation, altered phenotype, no mutation in the gene itself.

A single paper destroys 3 of your claims/implications.

 

[tas8831]

The mutations caused by single twicks (point mutations) and the mutations caused by duplication can be identified

Identify those needed for bipedality, then.

But my guess is you will go for the Behe gambit.

 

[tas8831]

That is correct , you don't have to explain 3 million, you just have to explain 1.5 million. On each group. 50,000 is still not enough.

Yet, in your last few posts, you have been claiming that we have at least 3 million.

So, which is it?

Is 50,000 not enough, or do we already have at least 3 million? Can you NOT contradict yourself in every other post depending on what 'argument' you think you are making at the moment?

In fact I was wrong the real number is closer to 1%

Here is where creationist confusion confuses me.

When we look at coding sequence, we differ by around 2%. When we look at genome size, the number is larger. But a big chunk of that larger number is mutations involving large numbers of bases (or 'internal' repeats). The ~2% coding difference is part of the overall base difference, but the two numbers are not identical. Creationists seem to conflate the two as they see fit (or because they can't tell the difference).

The mutations caused by single twicks (point mutations) and the mutations caused by duplication can be identified

Great. With your amazing newly discovered genetics expertise, explain how we find them. Then give examples for traits you think are important.

 

[tas8831]

Well because so far 3,000,000 have been identified (or inferred) as my source shows………

No, your source indicated "may be".

 

[tas8831]

My original point was that sometimes you need to change both the gene and the regulator in other to change a trait. (Making the problem harder to solve).

A big problem here:

NO, that is NOT what your original point was:

"You don’t have to speculate much, we know that at least a big portion of non-codign DNA has a function…. For example they control gene expression …………this represents more problems for Darwinist, since in order to have an advantage you have to shuffle a gene + you have to shuffle the non coding DNA that controls the expression of that gene, if you don’t have both you don’t have an advantage."

But in response to your question (assuming that I understood correctly) yes if you can show that by changing a single regulator multiple genes would change and produce multiple benefitial traits, that would help to make the number smaller ñ

Absolutely incredible.

 

[Jollybear]

Actually it is not based on what we would call objective verifiable belief in the methods of science.

Ok....so, its subjective belief. What then is the reason for belief?

I believe humans have to seek the universal of the witness of God in Creation

Theres a contortion going on in my head as i read your statement here. When i read "the WITNESS of God IN CREATION" i think of evidence of God in creation. What do you mean by "witness"?

and human nature and not cling to ancient world views like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. and accept the results of the knowledge of science based on the objective verifiable evidence God does not Create conflicts between the evidence and reality.

Evidence and reality? Ok, well, i see evidence of design. So, it must be reality then because God dont create conflicts. Right? What do you mean by evidence?

It simply is.

I agree love, justice, ect is evidence of God. But, id like to know your reasons for thinking this. I wanna see if its the same as my reasons.

I could also say ID simply is evidence for God too. Lol

Belief in and of itself is not evidence for the existence. Belief is the fallible human choice to believe in God

Ok, so if belief isnt the evidence, and ID isnt, then what is and why?

God Creates without the need for human explanation.

So, its just a subjective belief? Whats the reasons for belief?

 

[Jollybear]

Not for me. You have a tendency to not responsively address the answers given to your questions and comments. For example, after you asked what science does, I answered, "You are communicating with me and others thanks to several of the gifts of science." Your next comment was, "By studying DESIGN in nature, engineers can learn to engineer more advanced technology. And theres two kinds of science, technology and understanding nature."

How is that related to your question and my answer?

Its related because your answer holds certain implications which say that science only deals with making technology. Thats not so. Science ALSO deals with seeking to understand nature as well.

My response was also to express a part of the ID model which is, if you want to design greater technology, see design first in nature and study that design, understand how it works, then mimick it through engineering.

As a hypothetical example, take a fly. It flys. It moves rapidly fast when it does fly. From a stop, it can move whiplash in speed.

We dont have flying machines that can move that fast (atleast that they dont admit).

Wouldent it be fascinating if humans would seek to understand the FULL design of how this fly works in order to do this kind of speed, then perhaps we could engineer something this advanced. Why do trial and error to build technology only? Why not seek to understand biological design in order to mimick it and bypass trial and error?

(Although, i think we do have some secret technology, but, thats for a seperate conversation).

Anyway, that comment of yours was the end of that subthread, and I still don't know why you asked what science does if you already knew the answer. None of that is useful to me.

I asked because we both hold two different positions which means both our communications are gonna be like a bird trying to communicate with a cat. So, alot of questions gotta be put forth to gain a mutual understanding. That way wer not using terms and words past eachother.

Observation. one can subject lifeless elements of nature such as water molecules that then organize themselves into complex forms such as snowflakes under preset circumstances without any external input. Others might imagine intelligent agents such as gremlins or pixies scurrying about building these structures, but they need not. Mindless matter can do this itself..

Yea, a snowflake forms by laws. Where did the laws come from?

Also, DNA is not like a snowflake. Its a code of instructions.

Also some cosmologists have proposed that at the quantum physics level, its also a bunch of codes and instructions for the entire universe.

Consider the complexity in a mountain. How many parameters would need to be provided to specify a particular mountain? - its contours, it fractures, its density in various locations of the mountain, its minerals and their arrangements throughout the mountain, etc..

Complexity can exist without intelligence, as can form. Planets arrange themselves into roughly spherical form and orbit stars in predictably elliptical paths with no intelligent input simply by blindly obeying the laws of physics.

Ya......where did the laws come from?

Isaac newton answered that by saying

"Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent."

Also

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

The ID people understood that complexity is not a infallible indicator of intelligence, which is why they sought irreducible or specified complexity as evidence of an intelligent designer.

Theres three things here, theres fine tunning of the laws. Then theres design. Then theres information. All three of those are everywhere. Its incredable.

No, it makes you guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur - the conclusion doesn't follow from what came before. And it's clear to me that people do not conclude that there is a god by studying nature. They believe in gods by faith, not empirical evidence, and then try to fit nature into their faith-based premise as you are doing here - selectively choosing aspects of nature that you think support a faith-based assumption about the existence of a god and backloading a argument made to look like gods are its conclusion when that was actually assumed right from the start - a premise offered as a conclusion, or what I like to call a pseudo-conclusion.

No, it makes you guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur - the conclusion doesn't follow from what came before. And it's clear to me that people do not conclude that there is NO god by studying nature. They believe in NO gods by faith, not empirical evidence, and then try to fit nature into their faith-based premise as you are doing here - selectively choosing aspects of nature that you think support a faith-based assumption about the NONE existence of a god and backloading a argument made to look like NO gods are its conclusion when that was actually assumed right from the start - a premise offered as a conclusion, or what I like to call a pseudo-conclusion.

I disagree for the reasons just stated. They assume gods a priori and believe in them by faith. Today, with modern science offering alternatives not involving gods, observing nature does not give one reason to conclude that an intelligent designer was involved in its creation

I disagree for the reasons just stated. They assume NO gods a priori and believe in NONE by faith. Today, with modern science offering the alternative to naturalism, which is God, observing nature DOES give one reason to conclude that an intelligent designer was involved in its creation.

Newton only thought clearly when he left his faith-based assumptions at the door. His work in areas like mathematics, optics, celestial mechanics, and gravitation, which employ's no faith-based assumptions, was useful then as it is now.

But living on the cusp of modernity, Newton also had a foot in medieval traditions like alchemy, a faith based system. His work there is only of historical interest, and never had any other value.

Only scientists that can learn to compartmentalize their religious beliefs and exclude them from their professional work are able to make lasting and useful contributions to science. As soon as gods creep into the thinking, you get pseudoscience, as with the ID people. Their work is sterile. It has produced no evidence of an intelligent designer, but has been repeatedly embarrassed by making claims of irreducible complexity in biological systems such as the eye, the flagellum, the hemostatic cascade, and the immune system, each of which has been shown to be a false claim.

He did not leave his belief in God at the door. A real believer would be consistent accross the board.

Also, lets get into one of these so called false claims. One at a time though, because time is a comodity for me.

DNA, that one first. And lo and behold, you did so below. Good deal.

Not always. If you are including DNA, then I disagree. There is no known reason why DNA could not have arisen naturalistically. And I've already explained to you why form such as the shape of a strand of DNA is different from information, which implies a conscious agent's understanding - a point that you chose to ignore only to repeat your already refuted claim. The argument given then still stands now.

When DNA uncoils and its two strands attract complimentary bases to form two strands of DNA identical to the original (except perhaps for a few new mutations), it is a matter of physical form and force acting passively to create physical structures. The shape of the DNA strand is form, not information. Information doesn't exist until one introduces a conscious agent capable of being informed by the forms of nature impacting his sensorium and generating ideas (information about the forms of external reality).

Just because you cant read the chinies language dont mean its not a language.

Also, just because a book is a form or structure dont mean it dont have information in it.

Yes, DNA is made of a chemical structure and its 4 letter alphabet is made of chemical bases that bind together. But, there arrangement creates INSTRUCTIONS that tell the cell what to do.

That implies.....intelligence. Wonderfull stuff.

Let me ask you a question that I've asked many believers: If you were wrong, how could discover that fact? You mentioned proving that the universe arose without the help of a god, but what could possibly do that for you were it the case? Most theists give no responsive answer. The merely reassert that they are not incorrect.

What could do it? Proof.

Let me say this too, something is either true or its not. Even if ID was not falsifiable, that does not make it false or wrong. It also would not make it right either. But the point is that falsifiability does not mean something is right or wrong.

But, that aside, yes, ID is falsifiable. If for instance you could prove the DNA did not come from intelligence, well, then ID is falsified then.

Is that LIKELY to happen? Not really. Its more likely that YOUR view would be proven to be falsified. Given the strong current evidence that DNA comes from intelligence and all.

Ok, the rest of the posters ill have to get to some more tomorrow. This one took a while. Gotta go to bed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ya......where did the laws come from? Isaac newton answered that by saying "Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent."

There's a wonderful essay and related YouTube Video of Neil DeGrasse Tyson discussing historical scientists and philosophers doing good science until they reached the limits of their knowledge, at which point, they inject religion into their work. You just cited one such example. Here's an excerpt:

"Isaac Newton was one of the greatest intellects the world has ever seen. His laws of motion and his universal law of gravitation, conceived in the mid-seventeenth century, account for cosmic phenomena that had eluded philosophers for millennia. Through those laws, one could understand the gravitational attraction of bodies in a system, and thus come to understand orbits.

"Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on.

"Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop, leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right:

“The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”​

Centuries earlier, Ptolemy had a similar experience while contemplating the paths of the planets and considering the then-intractable problem of apparent retrograde motion in Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, as they seemed to stop in their orbits, reverse direction for a bit, and then return to their previous motion. Out of answers, Ptolemy appeals to his gods:

...plenty of scientists besides Newton have called on God—or the gods—wherever their comprehension fades to ignorance. second-century A.D. Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy. Armed with a description, but no real understanding, of what the planets were doing up there, he could not contain his religious fervor:

“I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace, at my pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia.”​

LaPlace answered Newton's three-bodied problem by inventing some new mathematics:

Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, Mécanique Céleste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict. To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces. According to an oft-repeated but probably embellished account, when Laplace gave a copy of Mécanique Céleste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon asked him what role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens. "Sire," Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."​

This has been the course of the history of scientific discovery. When men can explain the workings of the heavenly bodies, they have no occasion to refer to gods, and describe nature quite naturalistically.It's only when they run out of physics and mathematics capable of modeling these problems do they resort to summoning the supernatural.

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

Mr. Newton is probably incorrect here. His religious intuitions are shining through again. Today we are aware of dozens if not hundreds of planets orbiting their stars in the Goldilocks range.

it's clear to me that people do not conclude that there is NO god by studying nature. They believe in NO gods by faith

Most atheists do not assert that there are no gods since they understand that they have no way to rule out the possibility. What they say is that they see no evidence of gods and therefore cannot justify holding a god belief. This comes from studying nature and finding no supernaturalism present. No faith is necessary to conclude that sufficient evidence to justify believing in gods has never been uncovered.

DNA is made of a chemical structure and its 4 letter alphabet is made of chemical bases that bind together. But, there arrangement creates INSTRUCTIONS that tell the cell what to do. That implies.....intelligence.

Not to me. Matter is continually instructing other matter how to behave without the help of an intelligent overseer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok....so, its subjective belief. What then is the reason for belief?

It is a personal commitment to believe. Objective versus subjective are well defined. The problem with going beyond this is that there are so many different conflicting and even adversarial beliefs that to claim it beyond the objective verifiable evidence that is the foundation of science.

There's a contortion going on in my head as i read your statement here. When i read "the WITNESS of God IN CREATION" i think of evidence of God in creation. What do you mean by "witness"?

Witness is not evidence in this context. It remains a matter of what one believes in God's Creation.

Evidence and reality? Ok, well, i see evidence of design. So, it must be reality then because God don't create conflicts. Right? What do you mean by evidence?

I could also say ID simply is evidence for God too. Lol

OK, you see ID, but that does not make it objectively so.

Design as it is defined and how you present it in terms of Creation remains an interpretation of the evidence and not evidence in and of itself.

No, God does not create conflicts, and what science falsifies based on the objective verifiable evidence would reflect the nature of God's Creation.

I agree love, justice, ect is evidence of God. But, I'd like to know your reasons for thinking this. I wanna see if its the same as my reasons.

I did not say love, justice, etc. are evidence of God. They are attributes in humanity. Some on who does not believe in God sees them as simply the natural nature of humanity.

Ok, so if belief isn't the evidence, and ID isn't, then what is and why?

So, its just a subjective belief? Whats the reasons for belief?

Belief by definition is not evidence.

We have gone over this many many times before and you just repeat questions I have answered before, based on the English definitions of design, subjective, and the very standard way science functions concerning the nature of our physical existence. You may believe as you choose, but that does not change the matter of fact of the limits of science.

In the view you present anyone could justify a wide range of 'beliefs' from witchcraft to alien worship. and science would indifferent to all these arguments..

 

[tas8831]

Yea, a snowflake forms by laws. Where did the laws come from?

Observations.

It is funny to me that so many non-science people think that when one mentions a 'law of nature' that they actually think this means that some entity laid down the parameters, as if these were like traffic laws or something.

In real life, "laws" of nature are so called because, in essence, no contradictory observations have been made. That is, 2 chemicals can only 'fit' together so many ways (typically, one). No exceptions are known of, thus, a law is born.

Also, DNA is not like a snowflake. Its a code of instructions.

Actually, it is a 'code' of the observed interactions of particular chemicals. Metaphorically calling it a code is basically shorthand.

Ya......where did the laws come from?

See above.

Isaac newton answered that by saying

"Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent."

Also

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

Newton also spent a lot of time trying to turn things into gold.

And it's clear to me that people do not conclude that there is NO god by studying nature. They believe in NO gods by faith, not empirical evidence, and then try to fit nature into their faith-based premise as you are doing here - selectively choosing aspects of nature that you think support a faith-based assumption about the NONE existence of a god and backloading a argument made to look like NO gods are its conclusion when that was actually assumed right from the start - a premise offered as a conclusion, or what I like to call a pseudo-conclusion.

So astute.

Tell us all, won't you, about the basis for accepting Genesis as fact?

They assume NO gods a priori and believe in NONE by faith.

And the religionist, such as yourself, accept just one god by faith alone.

Of course, your claim is a mere assumption borne of your desire for it to be so. I abandoned Christianity long ago, and abandoned even the notion of Jehovah upon re-reading the bible and learning about the world. Your assumptions - very common among the fervent religionists of the world, I am sure - are a product of ignorance.

Today, with modern science offering the alternative to naturalism

Now THAT is funny stuff.

 

[shunyadragon]

Its related because your answer holds certain implications which say that science only deals with making technology. That's not so. Science ALSO deals with seeking to understand nature as well.

Actually the purpose of science is to acquire knowledge concerning the nature of our physical existence ONLY. Technology is the application of the knowledge of science for human use.

My response was also to express a part of the ID model which is, if you want to design greater technology, see design first in nature and study that design, understand how it works, then mimick it through engineering.

As a hypothetical example, take a fly. It flys. It moves rapidly fast when it does fly. From a stop, it can move whiplash in speed.

We don't have flying machines that can move that fast (at least that they don't admit).

Wouldn't it be fascinating if humans would seek to understand the FULL design of how this fly works in order to do this kind of speed, then perhaps we could engineer something this advanced. Why do trial and error to build technology only? Why not seek to understand biological design in order to mimick it and bypass trial and error?

By definition science does not see 'design in nature. Humans design and develop technology based on the knowledge of science, and the needs of humanity.

(Although, i think we do have some secret technology, but, that s for a separate conversation).

A little cultish and "Wu! Wu! bizzaro" to say the least

I asked because we both hold two different positions which means both our communications are gonna be like a bird trying to communicate with a cat. So, a lot of questions gotta be put forth to gain a mutual understanding. That way we're not using terms and words past each other.

Primarily, because you are not using definitions that fit the English language and science.

Yea, a snowflake forms by laws. Where did the laws come from?

Theists believe the Laws of Nature come from God. The objective verifiable evidence demonstrates the Laws of Nature simply existence.

Also, DNA is not like a snowflake. Its a code of instructions.

True, but subject to the same Laws of Nature as snow flakes,

Also some cosmologists have proposed that at the quantum physics level, its also a bunch of codes and instructions for the entire universe.

'Some cosmologists?!?!?! Far too vague and meaningless, and the above does not remotely represent the view of cosmologists. The bottom line is no 'some cosmologists' do NIOT have this view.

Ya......where did the laws come from?

By the objective verifiable evidence the Laws of Nature simply exist, and beyond this it is philosophical/theological conjecture and subjective claims without evidence.

Isaac newton answered that by saying

"Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent."

Also

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

Isaac Newton is making these statements based on his religious belief, and not science, and that was hundreds of years ago.

Theres three things here, theres fine tunning of the laws. Then theres design. Then theres information. All three of those are everywhere. Its incredable.

Confusing and not meaningful.

No, it makes you guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur

Misuse of logical fallacies.

- the conclusion doesn't follow from what came before. And it's clear to me that people do not conclude that there is NO god by studying nature. They believe in NO gods by faith, not empirical evidence, and then try to fit nature into their faith-based premise as you are doing here - selectively choosing aspects of nature that you think support a faith-based assumption about the NONE existence of a god and backloading a argument made to look like NO gods are its conclusion when that was actually assumed right from the start - a premise offered as a conclusion, or what I like to call a pseudo-conclusion.

It is a matter of definition in the English language that the belief or the non-belief in God is a philosophical/theological decision and not supported by science. Methodological Naturalism establishes the standards for science concerning this issue.

 

[Skwim]

Yea, a snowflake forms by laws. Where did the laws come from?

The "laws" come from the nature of molecular stabilization.


From Scientific American

Q: Why are snowflakes symmetrical? How can ice crystallizing on one arm 'know' the shape of the other arms on the flake?

A: Snowflakes are symmetrical because they reflect the internal order of the water molecules as they arrange themselves in the solid state (the process of crystallization). Water molecules in the solid state, such as in ice and snow, form weak bonds (called hydrogen bonds) to one another. These ordered arrangements result in the basic symmetrical, hexagonal shape of the snowflake. In reality, there are many different types of snowflakes (as in the clich that 'no two snowflakes are alike'); this differentiation occurs because each snowflake is a separate crystal that is subject to the specific atmospheric conditions, notably temperature and humidity, under which it is formed.

The second question has to do with the way in which snowflakes are formed. The growth of snowflakes (or of any substance changing from a liquid to a solid state) is known as crystallization. During this process, the molecules (in this case, water molecules) align themselves to maximize attractive forces and minimize repulsive ones. As a result, the water molecules arrange themselves in predetermined spaces and in a specific arrangement. This process is much like tiling a floor in accordance with a specific pattern: once the pattern is chosen and the first tiles are placed, then all the other tiles must go in predetermined spaces in order to maintain the pattern of symmetry. Water molecules simply arrange themselves to fit the spaces and maintain symmetry; in this way, the different arms of the snowflake are formed.
source
​

So the crystallization that takes place on each of the "arms" or "faces" of the hexagon are identical because they are all subject to the exact same atmospheric conditions at the moment of that particular crystallization.

Interesting, but no mystery. And it certainly doesn't require the help of some supernatural agent.

.

​

 

[Jollybear]

It is a personal commitment to believe. Objective versus subjective are well defined. The problem with going beyond this is that there are so many different conflicting and even adversarial beliefs that to claim it beyond the objective verifiable evidence that is the foundation of science.

When i read this comment here i cannot agree or disagree because im not comprehending the point your trying to make.

Witness is not evidence in this context. It remains a matter of what one believes in God's Creation.

So, belief IS the witness of Gods creation?

OK, you see ID, but that does not make it objectively so.

If its not objective, why do i see ID then?

Design as it is defined and how you present it in terms of Creation remains an interpretation of the evidence and not evidence in and of itself.

So when someone says theres no design, is that there interpretation of the evidence?

No, God does not create conflicts, and what science falsifies based on the objective verifiable evidence would reflect the nature of God's Creation.

In other words, God will never be disproven by science is what your saying?

I did not say love, justice, etc. are evidence of God. They are attributes in humanity. Some on who does not believe in God sees them as simply the natural nature of humanity.

Ok. So, if theres no evidence for God, why do you believe in God?

Belief by definition is not evidence.

Agree.

We have gone over this many many times before and you just repeat questions I have answered before, based on the English definitions of design, subjective, and the very standard way science functions concerning the nature of our physical existence. You may believe as you choose, but that does not change the matter of fact of the limits of science.

Yea, weve gone over it, but unless i understand then i must ask the same questions a thousand different ways.

Also is this limit of science due to definition or due to ability?

In the view you present anyone could justify a wide range of 'beliefs' from witchcraft to alien worship. and science would indifferent to all these arguments..

I dont agree, but i understand how you would say that. There is actual evidence in the DNA, via codes.

 

[shunyadragon]

When i read this comment here i cannot agree or disagree because I'm not comprehending the point your trying to make.

Design is subjective claim by theists. Theism and belief in God(s) is to variable in human belief to be supported by objective verifiable evidence.

So, belief IS the witness of Gods creation?

Yes, but remains a personal subjective 'belief.'

If its not objective, why do i see ID then?

. . . because you choose to believe it so based on faith.

So when someone says there's no design, is that there interpretation of the evidence?

Actually, science considers there to be a lack of objective verifiable evidence for Design in the nature of our physical existence. Science is neutral. Individuals, including some scientists, may say they believe in Design, but that remains a personal choice, not science.

In other words, God will never be disproven by science is what your saying?

The existence, not non-existence of God(s) cannot be falsified by scientific methods in the foreseeable future.

Ok. So, if theres no evidence for God, why do you believe in God?

I believe in God from a universal apophatic* perspective based on philosophical/theological person investigation and reflection. Of course, and in harmony with science.

Apophatic God* - God cannot be defined and limited in the positive sense by the beliefs of any one religion nor church. Comparable to the Jewish view of God.

I believe the God(s) defined and limited to any one of the multitude of belief systems is a contradiction, irrational, and illogical to the nature of an omnipotent, omnipresent Creator God that relates to God's Creation in particular by Revelation.

Also is this limit of science due to definition or due to ability?

Actually both.

I don't agree, but i understand how you would say that. There is actual evidence in the DNA, via codes.

I do not believe that what you claim as 'actual evidence' that would qualify as objective verifiable evidence that could falsify an Intelligent Design Hypothesis. So far the scientists associated with the Discovery Institute have not proposed a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Jollybear]

The "laws" come from the nature of molecular stabilization.


From Scientific American

Q: Why are snowflakes symmetrical? How can ice crystallizing on one arm 'know' the shape of the other arms on the flake?

A: Snowflakes are symmetrical because they reflect the internal order of the water molecules as they arrange themselves in the solid state (the process of crystallization).​

Key word "order" of the water molecules. Wonderfull word isnt it?

Water molecules in the solid state, such as in ice and snow, form weak bonds (called hydrogen bonds) to one another. These ordered arrangements result in the basic symmetrical, hexagonal shape of the snowflake.

"Ordered" arrangements. That word ORDER is like music to my ears, lol.

In reality, there are many different types of snowflakes (as in the clich that 'no two snowflakes are alike'); this differentiation occurs because each snowflake is a separate crystal that is subject to the specific atmospheric conditions, notably temperature and humidity, under which it is formed.

Ahhh, thats interesting, thats nice.

The second question has to do with the way in which snowflakes are formed. The growth of snowflakes (or of any substance changing from a liquid to a solid state) is known as crystallization. During this process, the molecules (in this case, water molecules) align themselves to maximize attractive forces and minimize repulsive ones. As a result, the water molecules arrange themselves in predetermined spaces and in a specific arrangement. This process is much like tiling a floor in accordance with a specific pattern: once the pattern is chosen and the first tiles are placed, then all the other tiles must go in predetermined spaces in order to maintain the pattern of symmetry.

Tiling floors is design. Thats just what ID does, uses analogy of human design as a comparison. Even this source cant get away from it. Its intuitive.

Water molecules simply arrange themselves to fit the spaces and maintain symmetry; in this way, the different arms of the snowflake are formed.
source

Yes.....yes indeed.
​

So the crystallization that takes place on each of the "arms" or "faces" of the hexagon are identical because they are all subject to the exact same atmospheric conditions at the moment of that particular crystallization.

Yea and where did the atmospheric conditions come from? And where did the ORDER come from?

Interesting, but no mystery. And it certainly doesn't require the help of some supernatural agent.

It still does. God made it and sustains it. Order implies a orderer.

 

[Skwim]

Yea and where did the atmospheric conditions come from? And where did the ORDER come from?

Obviously, you want to claim that god is behind it all, everything in the universe, which would quickly to take the discussion back to a whole other issue: the existence of god, an issue the thread wasn't intended to entertain, nor am I.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Jollybear]

There's a wonderful essay and related YouTube Video of Neil DeGrasse Tyson discussing historical scientists and philosophers doing good science until they reached the limits of their knowledge, at which point, they inject religion into their work.

And what of those scientists that inject chance and something from nothing or an eternal universe or spontanious generation of life from chemicals into there work due to ignorance, do they get a pass?

We get accused of "God of the gaps" but the door swings both ways. Those that dont believe in God are guilty of "naturalistic of the gaps"

You just cited one such example. Here's an excerpt:

"Isaac Newton was one of the greatest intellects the world has ever seen. His laws of motion and his universal law of gravitation, conceived in the mid-seventeenth century, account for cosmic phenomena that had eluded philosophers for millennia. Through those laws, one could understand the gravitational attraction of bodies in a system, and thus come to understand orbits.

"Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on.

"Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop, leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right:

“The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”​

Centuries earlier, Ptolemy had a similar experience while contemplating the paths of the planets and considering the then-intractable problem of apparent retrograde motion in Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, as they seemed to stop in their orbits, reverse direction for a bit, and then return to their previous motion. Out of answers, Ptolemy appeals to his gods:

...plenty of scientists besides Newton have called on God—or the gods—wherever their comprehension fades to ignorance. second-century A.D. Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy. Armed with a description, but no real understanding, of what the planets were doing up there, he could not contain his religious fervor:

“I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace, at my pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia.”​

LaPlace answered Newton's three-bodied problem by inventing some new mathematics:

Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, Mécanique Céleste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict. To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces. According to an oft-repeated but probably embellished account, when Laplace gave a copy of Mécanique Céleste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon asked him what role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens. "Sire," Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."​

This has been the course of the history of scientific discovery. When men can explain the workings of the heavenly bodies, they have no occasion to refer to gods, and describe nature quite naturalistically.

If there is a God, as you said you dont rule out, then to say there will always be a unguided natural explanation, even if not presently understood, dont you see thats "naturalism of the gaps"? The door swings both ways.

It's only when they run out of physics and mathematics capable of modeling these problems do they resort to summoning the supernatural.

No, i disagree. I dont think real believers summon God AFTER they run out of knowledge. They TRUELY see God in it from start to finish.

Mr. Newton is probably incorrect here. His religious intuitions are shining through again. Today we are aware of dozens if not hundreds of planets orbiting their stars in the Goldilocks range.

Most atheists do not assert that there are no gods since they understand that they have no way to rule out the possibility. What they say is that they see no evidence of gods and therefore cannot justify holding a god belief.

To not have faith in God is by default TOO HAVE FAITH in something else. Atheism as much as they hate to admit it, they have faith the universe either came from nothing and chance or was always here. Thats what they INSERT into the GAP.

This comes from studying nature and finding no supernaturalism present. No faith is necessary to conclude that sufficient evidence to justify believing in gods has never been uncovered.

No faith is necessary to conclude that sufficient evidence to justify believing in nothing and chance or an eternal universe and this has never been uncovered.

Not to me. Matter is continually instructing other matter how to behave without the help of an intelligent overseer.

Reactions are not the same as instructions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Order implies a orderer.

It is easy to show many examples of order from disorder without the help of intelligence. Consider a tornado, which is a much more ordered structure than the air molecules in your living room, the former all moving in the same direction around the same axis to create a visible structure, the latter being independent air molecules moving in all possible directions.

Consider a spherical planet with all of its matter rotating about its axis in unison as it all orbits a star as well, which has self-organized under the force of gravity alone from randomly configured, sized, and moving pieces of gas, dust, and rock. Those are both examples of order arising spontaneously from chaos without an orderer.

And what of those scientists that inject chance and something from nothing or an eternal universe or spontanious generation of life from chemicals into there work due to ignorance, do they get a pass?

I don't know to what you are referrin hereg, but the measure of the quality of a scientist's work is the extent to which it accurately maps some portion of reality allowing mankind to predict and at times control how that matter will behave under prescribed circumstances.

I recently mentioned the New Horizons space probe launched several years ago to rendezvous with Pluto and chart it. What else do you need to know about the validity of the assumptions that the scientists and engineers made apart from the fact that the mission was a success. The ideas used to accomplish this engineering marvel allowed man to successfully predict where Pluto would be at any given moment, and to control the motion of the probe to meet it. You need know nothing more to know that the science was valid.

The sine qua non of a valid idea about reality is that it can be used in that way - to predict and control outcomes. Ideas that can do that are useful and should be accumulated. Ideas that cannot do that should be modified to be able to do so if possible, or jettisoned if they cannot. This is the unfortunate category that all assertions about creationism and intelligent design find themselves - not a single one of them can be used to predict or control anything, just like the assumptions underlying astrology. This, then, is the sine qua non of an incorrect idea about reality - its lack of utility.

We get accused of "God of the gaps" but the door swings both ways. Those that dont believe in God are guilty of "naturalistic of the gaps"

There is no naturalism-of-the-gaps. The phrase implies that man began with a naturalistic view of physical reality and has been repeatedly demonstrating that a god is actually needed to account for such findings, leaving increasingly little for blind nature to do. That is the opposite of the actual history of scientific progress.

I dont think real believers summon God AFTER they run out of knowledge.

The examples Tyson provided are of people who didn't invoke the input of their gods until they reached the perimeters of their knowledge, people like Newton who were real believers. It's a nice illustration of the human proclivity to do that. In the past, when much less was known about nature, gods were posited to account for natural phenomena not otherwise explainable.

Tyson provides us with a third example of this god-of-the-gaps thinking coming from "seventeenth-century Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens, whose achievements include constructing the first working pendulum clock and discovering the rings of Saturn. In his charming book The Celestial Worlds Discover'd, posthumously published in 1696, most of the opening chapter celebrates all that was then known of planetary orbits, shapes, and sizes, as well as the planets' relative brightness and presumed rockiness. The book even includes foldout charts illustrating the structure of the solar system. God is absent from this discussion—even though a mere century earlier, before Newton's achievements, planetary orbits were supreme mysteries.

"Celestial Worlds also brims with speculations about life in the solar system, and that's where Huygens raises questions to which he has no answer. That's where he mentions the biological conundrums of the day, such as the origin of life's complexity. And sure enough, because seventeenth-century physics was more advanced than seventeenth-century biology, Huygens invokes the hand of God only when he talks about biology:

“I suppose nobody will deny but that there's somewhat more of Contrivance, somewhat more of Miracle in the production and growth of Plants and Animals than in lifeless heaps of inanimate Bodies, For the finger of God, and the Wisdom of Divine Providence, is in them much more clearly manifested than in the other.”

Here we are in the 21st century, having seen countless examples of phenomena previously attributed to divine intervention before they were understood to occur naturalistically. It's not difficult to see what the limit of this process is, and to speculate that we are headed to a time when all physical phenomena can be described and predicted without resorting to anything but blind, natural law.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To not have faith in God is by default TOO HAVE FAITH in something else.

You seem to think that it is impossible to think without faith, by which I mean unjustified belief, as in faith in gods, distinct from justified belief, such as faith that my car will start the next time I attempt to start it just as it has the last several hundred ties it was put to the test.These are not the same thing even if they are both called faith just as a couple of girls each named faith are not the same person.

When one uses the same word in two different and distinct ways in an argument, he is apt to commit an equivocation fallacy, such as occurs when one notes that banks are a safe place to keep money, that rivers have banks, and that therefore rivers are a safe place to keep money.

This is what you are doing when you conflate faith in God and faith in science. The latter is like the car starting. There are centuries of experiencial evidence that the latter belief is justified by those accomplishments, whereas faith in God is based the unjustified and unsubstantiated belief that gods exist. Likening them because the word faith appears in an argument like yours is the same as likening city banks and river banks because the same word has been chosen for both.

We only need return to the sine qua non discussions above to recognize that one of these has been productive, generating science texts full of useful information capable of predicting the outcomes of assorted physical processes, while the other is still stalled at the starting gate trying to generate its first such useful idea, to recognize that these faiths are not only two different things, but that they have opposite track records for success.

Returning to your comment, it is obviously possible to think without having unjustified belief if one examines his beliefs and either identifies their justification if they are justified, or rejects them if he discovers they are not. Abandoning religious beliefs for the teachings of science is not changing what one has faith (unjustified belief) in, but radically changing the means by which one decides what is true about reality.

Please allow me to share an anecdote. I have an acquaintance who considers scientific medicine a conspiracy to kill you slowly while draining your bank accounts. She will tell you that health care consists exclusively of diet, exercise, and avoiding toxins. She has the most sever form of gluten insensitivity, so-called celiac sprue, which is associated with a high incidence of small bowel carcinoma, a complication she unfortunately contracted, one treatable only with radical surgery and other aggressive modalities. She opted for aggressive medical care over herbs and other ineffective interventions, and appears to be doing quite well postoperatively.

Her faith in folk remedies was apparently not as strong as one would imagine given her choice to pursue traditional medical care. Her belief in folk remedies was faith based in the sense that it was unjustified belief. Her decision to turn to science was probably based in her belief that she had a better chance of surviving if she chose physicians and hospitals, which I presume was based on her willingness to believe that this path had a track record showing better outcomes from aggressive therapy than from not, which I would call justified belief. You might say that she turned her faith from folkways to science, but I would say that she turned from unjustified belief to justified belief.

One is reminded of the saying that there are no atheists in foxholes, implying that when one's life is at stake, he will turn to religion even if he never has before. This is the opposite. When her life was on the line, she turned away from magical thinking toward science.

Atheism as much as they hate to admit it, they have faith the universe either came from nothing and chance or was always here.

Like most atheists, I'm happy to "admit" (define) my position on the origin of the universe, and there is no faith involved. Also, it doesn't resemble what you have suggested are my choices. In my case, I have identified six logical possibilities for the existence of our universe. My guess is that you have chosen option [6].

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god or gods (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god or gods that has/have always existed.

I choose none of these. None can be ruled in or out at this time. I can order them, however, and say that some are likelier to be the case than others. I consider [4] likeliest because it accounts for the fine tuning problem more parsimoniously than either of the god hypotheses.

Did you discern any faith-based beliefs in that answer?

Good discussion, by the way.

 

[tas8831]

My original point was that sometimes you need to change both the gene and the regulator in other to change a trait.

Point?

A mere unsupported assertion is not a 'point.'

You have no clue - you NEVER present anything remotely like support for your assertions. Your arguments are premised ENTIRELY on your desire for evolution to be wrong, so you can rest easy in your mere belief that Genesis I and II are totally true.