Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[tas8831]

And keep in mind, these mutations are from artificial means. Under lab-controlled conditions. The researchers are forcing pressures on the E. coli strains.

Classic.

Creationist: Show us lab experiments that prove evolution!

Evolution guy: OK, here are some experiments that demonstrate X.

Creationist: But those experiments are artificial! Nothing to see here!


Classic disingenuous behavior.

 

[tas8831]

So do you think two of every billion+ species went on the ark? How long ago was this supposed flood?

During the Egyptian Old Kingdom, the inhabitants of which did not seem to notice.

Oh, wait - that is a YEC canard that JWs do not agree with.

 

[tas8831]

It's not looney to see intelligent design in things, even for the educated. As humans, we have this tendency to see design even in randomness. Seeing intelligence behind the complexity arising from evolution is understandable.

Note that I am only defending the tendency for humans to see intelligent design, not creationism.

Yes, and we tend to see faces when there are none. We like to see things we are familiar with.
Or what we want to see.

 

[tas8831]

Have any of them published a scientific paper which demonstrates that a god exists?

That assumes that they do not rely on false dichotomies as their foundation.

 

[tas8831]

Well, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....

Sure - when one is a duck enthusiast, one sees ducks all over the place.

 

[tas8831]

I looked up “snide” looks like a synonym for derogatory. I reviewed my posts in this thread and see nothing derogatory in them.

Perhaps you have me confused with somone else?

This is a typical technique of many creationists. He is setting up an escape, a reason to ignore you.

 

[tas8831]

Unfortunately the "ID" that we can see is an "Incompetent Designer". Evolution works on "good enough" as a result life is full of evolutionary kludges. Take a look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraffe. An Intelligent Designer would have started from scratch and directly wired the function. But evolution is far from intelligent. It has to work with what already exists.

Let's not forget the hyena pseudopenis!

 

[tas8831]

Lönnig says,

the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny.​

I'm curious to know how Genesis Creation stood up when he subjected it to the same scrutiny. How does magic work?

Outstanding - creationists are nothing if not blind to their own hypocrisy.

 

[tas8831]

He adds,

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened.​

That's weirdly, selectively naive. There are endless demonstrations that evolution ─ descent with variation ─ is a fact. The arguments are about how particular examples are to be explained, or which tentative outline best fits the incomplete evidence available.

Says the guy whose belief system - premised on a solitary collection of documents (the bible), has adherents that disagree as to whether the earth is 6000 years old or ~14 BILLION.

 

[tas8831]

Well see, there’s your problem.

God didn’t use magic. He created the Heavens and Earth, and all matter, using natural means, through the physical laws He established.

What magic was used to create these laws, and what is the evidence for any of that?

How do you create something?

Not by first creating the raw materials I will need.

 

[tas8831]

I’ll post it again...
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

Are you kidding? I thought you didn't accept lab science?

Who cares if this boat floated? How did we get the extant diversity we have from 35,000 breeding pairs?

Please show us the U of Leicester study demonstrating the population genetics that explains this post-single-breeding-pair bottleneck producing the current extant diversity.

 

[tas8831]

So what exactly happened when God said Let there be light? Talk me through it.

I second this - I am especially interested in the techniques employed at the subatomic-level to produce organic material from inorganic matter.

 

[tas8831]

So to sum up Jehovah’s Witnesses claims.
-35,000 species allegedly went on the boat (from your link)
-The flood occurred 4350 years ago
(From Flood of Noah’s Day — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY)

Fact: There are 6.5 million species of land creature today (How Many Species on Earth?)

This raises obvious questions;
How did we get from 35,000 species to 6.5million since the alleged flood without evolution occurring?

If you are saying we went from 35,000 to 6.5million in 4,350 years, why couldn’t we go from 1 or a small number to 1billion plus in the 4+billion years evolution had to play with?

So snide.... Asking a creationist to supply the same level of detail they demand of us.....

 

[tas8831]

Nah, sorry...genetic mutations rarely produce novel, functional information.

Wow, you sound so confident!

Did you take like 5 university-level classes on genetics and cell biology in the last couple of months?

Or is this just the confidence of "knowing" that your heroes are totally correct and the other 98% of actual biologists are all just part of a conspiracy?

Well, since you are an expert on genetics and "functional information", perhaps you could be so kind as to describe the flow of functional information in this scenario:

Science. 2002 Sep 27;297(5590):2253-6.
A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.

Abstract
Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. 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.

And if mutations do create a different process, the organism always loses function in another. The LTEE started by Lenski is a good example of this.

And if that is the case, what is your point? Show us where it is written that evolution posits a continual accumulation of 'better' alleles and traits and never a loss elsewhere.

Can't wait!

 

[tas8831]

@TagliatelliMonster , ‘skin over moles’ eyes’?

Again, we’re talking micro-evolution. No dispute,

Why did Jehovah create the moles with unusable eyes?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, and we tend to see faces when there are none. We like to see things we are familiar with.
Or what we want to see.

Exactly! It is the way we make sense out of the chaos outside the filter of our discriminating senses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster , ‘skin over moles’ eyes’?

It was just an example to show your point is WRONG that the cost of evolutionary progress is always the "loss" of function.

Not only is that demonstrably false... even more then that: sometimes the loss of a function IS the evolutionary progress - like with the eyes of moles.

But I see that even getting this example isn't stopping you from repeating your nonsense claim that was proven incorrect. This is so because you don't care about evidence or truth. You only care about upholding your religious beliefs. And in this case, that means that you can't accept evolution - regardless of the evidence.

This is why you don't care about your assertions being demonstrated wrong. You can't care. You're not permitted to care. Because it would lead to a faith crisis.

Again, we’re talking micro-evolution. No dispute,

Another thing you repeatedly re-assert, not caring at all that it is wrong: the micro/macro nonsense.

Surely it has been explained to you countless times how these aren't different processes and that one is just a logical and inevitable consequence of the other. Like how walking step by step, will inevitably end up covering distances of many miles.

Just be honest about your beliefs and your actual motivations for rejection evolution theory. People will respect you more. So will I. I'ld still think it would be a stupid thing to do, but at least you'ld be honest.

 

[tas8831]

Exactly! It is the way we make sense out of the chaos outside the filter of our discriminating senses.

For the most part, it does seem that way.
And for some, this phenomenon also seems to bleed into drawing conclusions from data/evidence, especially when one has little background or knowledge of the means by which the data/evidence was generated/discovered/analyzed.

 

[Magical Wand]

Something cannot come from nothing. ... In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

I'm glad I found your post.

So, I honestly think there are several problems with these philosophically naive/unsophisticated scientists' reasons for believing in God.

First, one said there is evidence everything he observes has a cause. However, I can grant that for the sake of argument (ignoring most interpretations of quantum mechanics) and that still doesn't lead one to God for innumerous reasons. (1) The law of causation is a law of physics. The laws of physics are regularities of nature. But in the absence of nature, it doesn't make sense to say there is a law of physics. Therefore, while the law applies to the universe once it exists, it doesn't apply to it in its absence. That means the universe could come into existence without a cause given that there was no law of causation prior to its existence. (2) If the universe is past-eternal, then it doesn't need any cause, since only what begins to exist has a cause. Indeed, it doesn't make any logical sense to say something that never began to exist had a cause of its existence (it is a logical contradiction). Ergo, unless this guy provides reasons for believing the universe had a beginning, there is no reason to accept the conclusion that it had a cause.

Second, he said the laws are too stable. But how does the existence of an organizer follows from that? When has it been established uniformity requires something conscious? How can he prove that?

Also, how has this philosophically naive scientist ruled out metaphysical necessity as an explanation of uniformity? Perhaps uniformity obtains in all possible worlds. If that's the case, then it is explained perfectly by its own necessity. He must deal with these equally speculative alternatives before claiming his view is more plausible or likely. In addition, God must also be uniform. His word never changes. He is not good today and evil tomorrow. That's uniformity as well. So, what explains his uniformity/stability? Is an additional God necessary to explain that? If not, then why does nature need an organizer and not God? These guys have to deal with these issues.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

(1) The law of causation is a law of physics. The laws of physics are regularities of nature. But in the absence of nature, it doesn't make sense to say there is a law of physics. Therefore, while the law applies to the universe once it exists, it doesn't apply to it in its absence. That means the universe could come into existence without a cause given that there was no law of causation prior to its existence.

“The law of causation is a law of physics.”

How’s that?

I “cause” what I build. I’m no “law of physics”.
It takes some degree of intelligence to accomplish my projects.

(2) If the universe is past-eternal, then it doesn't need any cause, since only what begins to exist has a cause. Indeed, it doesn't make any logical sense to say something that never began to exist had a cause of its existence (it is a logical contradiction). Ergo, unless this guy provides reasons for believing the universe had a beginning, there is no reason to accept the conclusion that it had a cause.

The “Big Bang” was a real event, from the evidence we’ve uncovered. Therefore, this 2nd premise is flawed.