Because we know feedback loops of certain intensities produce complexity quickly and naturally. We know such feedback loops are common in biology.
Not even close.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Miracle of Water.
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Because we know feedback loops of certain intensities produce complexity quickly and naturally. We know such feedback loops are common in biology.
Not even close.
I have as much real evidence for my God as you have for his absence.
"Errata
All OpenStax textbooks undergo a rigorous review process. However, like any professional-grade textbook, errors sometimes occur. The good part is, since our books are web-based, we can make updates periodically. If you have a correction to suggest, submit it here. We review your suggestion and make necessary changes."
Yep, you can always rely on science to get it right.....
You mean like there is one definition of the word "theory" unless it relates to science....which means it's the truth until we say it isn't.
"Nothing" is what came before "Something". Since the Creator is not "Something" i.e. he is not a material being; he is the Creator of all the 'somethings' that exist. As the source of all energy, he was able to create matter.
Science hasn't advanced enough to understand God's existence. Surely you can't imagine that science knows all there is to know?
I would wager that compared to what can be known, science isn't even out of its infancy. Science is in no position to make assertions about the existence of an all powerful Creator.
Of course it's an uncomfortable companion to evolution.....I can understand why it is distanced from all mention of evolution. What does it matter how life changed from amoebas to dinosaurs if you can't figure out how life "poofed" itself into existence in the first place?
Yes...and every bit of it is speculation. It is suggested as if it is provable fact. You know that none of it is provable. If you have no proof...you have a belief.
Now this made me laugh....
"....at some point in evolutionary history when there were no chickens, two birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens mated and laid an egg that hatched into the first chicken. If you are prepared to call that egg a chicken’s egg, then the egg came first. Otherwise, the chicken came first and the first chicken’s egg had to wait until the first chicken laid it."
You can't be serious....
This is science????No one will ever have to prove God's existence.....he will do so himself, and in the process he will separate the humans who know and accept him from those who deny him. Humanity are categorising themselves without any direct intervention from himself. WE tell God who we are.....our decisions are ours to make. But all decisions have consequences. We choose our position....we choose our own destiny.
After all, what makes one person a "boots and all" believer, and someone else an avowed atheist? Do you know?
No I don't. Neither does he. His creation speaks louder than words ever could. Our response to his creation is very individual....it fills me with awe and I am compelled to give thanks to the one who made it. What impact does it have on you? Who are you grateful to? Mother Nature? She has a husband....they are a wonderful team.
Science has no real evidence either.
We can assert just as much as you do....
Of course it is....here you go.....Genesis 1:20-31...
"Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.” 27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.
31 After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day."
This was written for a non-scientific community of people over 1500 years before the Common Era. Humans have learned a lot in three and a half thousand years.....but its a drop in the bucket compared to what is yet to be discovered.
How would Moses have known the order of creation? How did he know that life began in the oceans and ended with the creation of humans? He doesn't mention microscopic life.....the creation accounts begin with mostly sentient life. The more intelligent creatures came last. How did he know?
The creative days were not 24 hour days but covered eons of time as science knows. The Bible allows for this....it also allows for the earth itself to have been created long before, it became habitable.
Makes sense to me....
Wasn't something significant predicted to occur on everyone of the following dates?
1914, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1932, 1935, 1951, 1975, 2000.
I wonder what that was? Hmmmm.
1914, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1932, 1935, 1951, 1975, 2000.
I wonder what that was? Hmmmm.
Please, @Polymath257 . This is the second time you've mentioned this. But "feedback", as the word implies, only operates on systems *already in place*. It doesn't explain the origin of those systems.
IMO, you're too willing to bestow ingenuity to mindlessness.
It is mindless, but not outside of the laws of nature. You are very willing to bestow evidence for something you have no evidence for.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No. I just don't see the point of throwing the baby out along with the bath water....
The sheer fact that you know about those instances, is thanks to other scientists who corrected for such mistakes.
Perhaps a handfull by a few in the hopes of 10 minutes of fame.
As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of papers detailing legit science and millions of pieces of legit evidence.
Says the cdesign proponentsists.
"we" aren't having this debate.
You are just ranting dishonest nonsense instead and exposing your ignorance on the topic.
Did you also understand what was meant by that? Because it sounds like you didn't.
Because the scientific theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is a testable model of reality with great explanatory, which can independently be tested and verified, and is supported by a truckload of solid evidence.
While the other is just religious creationism (badly) disguised in a labcoat.
No.
No theory in science can be "proven". Only supported or disproven.
This is true for evolution as well as any other theory in science.
But hey, don't let intellectual honest get in your way of preaching.
There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It's arguably the best evidenced theory in all of science.
Sure. Just like in any other field, it comes down to scientists' educated and informed interpretation of data. And their interpretations, are independently testable and verifiable.
Please............ your god beliefs and creationism are not conclusions from a carefull examination of the facts and phenomena of reality. You already had these beliefs coming into it. You hold these believes dogmatically and so you REQUIRE reality to conform to your beliefs.
It doesn't matter what evidence you will look at. You already made up your mind, before looking at any evidence. And you have already decided that no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.
You are so burried in these dogmatic beliefs that when the facts of reality don't agree with your beliefs, you'll assume the facts to be wrong.
Either you really don't understand the difference between evidence and proof, or you didn't think this through at all.
Consider a murder case.
You claim it was done by undetectable pixies.
I claim it was done by Tom.
Upon investigating the murder scence, we find Tom's finger prints on the murder weapon and the victim's blood on his shoes and T-shirt. We also see him entering the victim's house on a security camera.
Neither of us have proof. But one of us has evidence. And the other, just has extra-ordinary claims.
One of us is being rational. The other isn't.
Can you tell which?
As evidenced by every theistic scientist in the world.
More on-topic though, you also don't have to be an atheist to accept scientific findings.
It does not, no matter how many times you repeat it.
I get why you have to say this though. It makes you feel as if your bronze-age beliefs are "on par" or "of equal worth" to scientific findings. But it's obvious nonsense, off course. You're only trying to take science down to your low level of make-belief, just so you can convince yourself that you aren't holding on to irrational beliefs.
Deep down, I think you know better then this.
No.
Consensus of science represents "the best we got/can do" at any given point.
When new data comes about that doesn't fit the consensus, it is investigated and the consensus changes accordingly.
Because science isn't based on "faith and beliefs". It's based on evidence and justifiable conclusions that can be verified with evidence and tests.
It's not. It's just a method of inquiry which demonstrably is the best method we have to learn about how reality works.
Religion is an entirely different animal.
Religion is belief system.
Science is a method of inquiry.
I see people trying to educate you on the topic. But it's clear that you have no interest in learning. Likely caused by your fear of having to rethink or question your religious beliefs.
I don't see how it is insulting to communicate the observation that people like you have no clue what they are talking about. See, when you argue against a scientific theory and your arguments reflect DEEP misunderstanding and ignorance concerning that theory... what else can be said, other then "you seem very ignorant on the theory you try to argue against"?
When you clearly have no understanding about evolution theory, all one can do is point it out and perhaps in the process correct some of the mistakes made. The problem with that last part though, is that you clearly give the impression that you aren't interested in learning at all.
You don't care that your arguments don't make sense.
You don't care that you are arguing strawmen.
You don't care that you engage in logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
Etc.
When "the defence", as you call it, observes that..... what is left, other then to point it out?
You have yet to mention a single one.
You see, poking holes in misrepresentations of an idea, is not actually poking holes in the actual idea.
See, this is why it is important to actually learn about the model you are hellbend on arguing against, BEFORE arguing against it. It will prevent you from arguing strawmen and such fallacious nonsense.
Nope.
You are as "indoctrinated" as you believe we are. Shocking, isn't it?
Nope. Educated and indoctrinated are not the same thing.
One is educated in math, biology, physics,...
One is indoctrinated into religion or ideologies.
Except our entire 21st century technological society.
We even detected gravity waves a few years ago. That was done by building a machine that was capable of measuring a change in distance of about 1 ten thousandth of a proton. An amazing feat. The gravity waves detected are the result of colliding black holes and colliding neutron stars, millions of lightyears away. These waves were predicted by a bunch of theories that you, no doubt, reject as well (assuming you are a YEC)
Again, learn the difference between evidence and proof please. You make a fool of yourself by your continued refusal to learn about this difference.
Theories aren't presented or asserted as fact in science.
Theories explain facts. Facts support theories.
Theories never become facts. Facts were never theories.
Learn how to science.
How can ID be tested?
What, if anything, would falsify ID if found/discovered?
After all, if there is overwhelming evidence for ID, as you claim, then you should have no problem answering these questions.
No. You mean: a designer isn't an a priori part of my belief system. Unlike you, I have no dogmatic a priori religious obligation to plug a god into certain aspects of reality. I have no problem plugging a deity into my worldview though. But I'm going to require a proper reason to do it.
The ONLY reason you do it, is because you have dogmatic obligation to do so.
One of us is dead wrong.......but which?
The one who believes things without evidence, dogmatically
No. Evidence will tell. Evidence has told already, actually.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And the same goes for Greeks and Zeus, Romans and Apollo, Muslims and Allah, Tom Cruise and inner immortal Thetans, children and santa claus, .......................................
Blatant shift of the burden of proof, coupled with a demand to prove a negative.
Awesome.
Well, you asked about the development of complexity. Once you have a reproducing system that has mutation and in an environment that is limited, there *will* be an increase of complexity over the course of generations. It is almost mathematically inevitable.
So, the issue reduces to the development of the first life. But, again, what is life? It is a complex collection of chemical reactions that are sufficient to allow reproduction and some sort of genetics (information transfer between generations).
And it is true that we don't understand the process of the formation of life. But we do know the basic chemicals were already there in the early earth. We know those chemicals naturally form the more complex ones like what we see in life. We know that cell-like structures naturally form from the lipids produced.
You can ask where the chemicals come from, but that isn't an aspect of complexity. It is simply looking at how fusion reactions happen inside stars.
While you see me as assigning ingenuity o mindlessness, I see you as refusing to see how complex the natural world is and how things can *appear* to be intentional and not.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What I say is, I don't know how everything got here. We don't know enough about it yet.
An honest evaluation of empirical evidence doesn't lead us to an intelligent creator because there is no empirical evidence indicating the existence of an intelligent creator entity.
We don't get to make one up because we can't wrap our minds around the complex interactions we observe in the universe. Complex interactions, which by the way, appear to occur without the intervention of any intelligent entity at all.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
If anybody had good evidence for God(s) I would have to believe in those gods, because that’s how evidence works. The problem is, in all this time that people have believed in and worshiped gods, not a single person has ever managed to actually produce any demonstrable, empirical evidence for any of them. The fact that people all over the world all believe in thousands of different gods, and people in history have all believed in thousands of different gods, most of which have been thrown into the trash heap of history, speaks volumes about the problem of the absence of evidence on the matter of gods. And without evidence, I can’t accept the claim. Get me some evidence, and I’ll have to accept the claim. Simple.
But it’s not on other people to disprove the existence of your god. It’s up to you to back up your claim with evidence. And while you poo-poo all over science, scientists will be busy backing up their claims with empirical evidence while you sit here denigrating their work and pretending they’re all corrupt god haters who are out to get you.
"Errata
All OpenStax textbooks undergo a rigorous review process. However, like any professional-grade textbook, errors sometimes occur. The good part is, since our books are web-based, we can make updates periodically. If you have a correction to suggest, submit it here. We review your suggestion and make necessary changes."
Yep, you can always rely on science to get it right.....
I don’t know what you’re going on about.
My message there was, if you want answers to all those questions you posted, you should know that they exist, and if you want to find out what they are, you’re going to need to educate yourself and read a couple of chemistry textbooks or take a class or something. And of course textbooks are open to changes and suggestions; they’re not stuck in some bubble of time and authoritarianism, like the Bible is.
Uh, no. I meant that there is only logic. There is no “your logic” and “my logic.” Just logic.
“Scientific theory” has a specific definition that has been provided to you more times than I can count, at this point.
Ah, see? You’ve broken your own rule, right off the bat. That was your rule. This is where logic breaks down and you just start making things up. Because of course, you have to. You don’t get to pretend that you’re exercising logic.
You don’t get to just declare that god is “nothing” or “something” when you can’t even demonstrate that the god exists in the first place. In other words, you’d have to first demonstrate that the god exists, before you get to start assigning characteristics to it. We have absolutely no examples of “nothing” so we can’t even know what you’re talking about anyway.
And what is “nothing” anyway? Have you ever seen “nothing?” We’re not even sure that “nothing” can exist, or whether that question even makes sense in the first place. And if you want to declare that god is not “something” then you are saying that god is “nothing” which would mean that said god doesn’t exist, because things that exist are “something.”
So you claim. That’s a great cop out answer, if you ask me.
But again, if we can’t observe or demonstrate the existence of a thing, then we have no good reason to believe that thing exists in the first place. The time to believe a thing exists is when the evidence indicates that the thing exists, and not before that.
Science doesn’t make any assertions about any creators. That’s left to people like yourself. Who, over the course of thousands of years, still haven’t managed to present any empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of any of the gods any of you have believed in.
Of course it's an uncomfortable companion to evolution.....I can understand why it is distanced from all mention of evolution. What does it matter how life changed from amoebas to dinosaurs if you can't figure out how life "poofed" itself into existence in the first place?
I love how you totally ignored what I said. Do you often ask your plumber for advice on how to tune up your car?
We don’t know how gravity “poofed” into existence, yet we can study it and understand it’s properties and how it works. The planet is teeming with life that we can study and attempt to understand how it came to be so diversified without having to know where the very first life forms came to be. And let’s be clear, scientists don’t claim that things “poof” into existence. That would be people associated with certain religions doing that.
No, it isn’t based on speculation. It’s based on the available evidence. Mountains of it.
Now this made me laugh....
"....at some point in evolutionary history when there were no chickens, two birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens mated and laid an egg that hatched into the first chicken. If you are prepared to call that egg a chicken’s egg, then the egg came first. Otherwise, the chicken came first and the first chicken’s egg had to wait until the first chicken laid it."
You can't be serious....
You know what makes me laugh? I provided something like that for you, because I know that if I provided a technical, scientific article on the subject you’d just say that scientists are using jargon to confuse people and brainwash them into believing evolution. There’s no winning with you. And that’s because you obviously aren’t actually interested in the evidence. Rather, you’re interested in hanging on to your preconceived beliefs no matter what you have to do, even if that includes ignoring empirical evidence.
Try these: (or, I don’t know, seek out the answers yourself, they are out there):
https://www.science.org.au/curious/everything-else/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1249
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/11250008409439457
Dinosaurs laid eggs. Dinosaurs pre-date chickens. There’s your answer.
The question isn’t all that useful anyway, and reflects something of a misunderstanding of how evolution works in the first place.
Oh gee, yet another cop out answer. How convenient for you that you don’t have to demonstrate the veracity of your claims, but everybody else has to. Sorry, that’s not how this works.
I’ll consider your claims when you can provide evidence for them. Until then, I have no good reasons to believe them. Science, on the other hand, has actual evidence to offer in support of its claims, so I’m going to stick with that.
Nice hypocrisy and double standard you’ve got there though.
In my case, EVIDENCE.
No I don't. Neither does he. His creation speaks louder than words ever could. Our response to his creation is very individual....it fills me with awe and I am compelled to give thanks to the one who made it. What impact does it have on you? Who are you grateful to? Mother Nature? She has a husband....they are a wonderful team.
Sure you do. Otherwise, again, you are eschewing logic. I mean, how can you declare the properties of a thing you have no way of testing, demonstrating or observing?
Now you’re just being silly. Science has mountains and mountains of evidence backing up its claims.
We can assert just as much as you do....
You can assert whatever you want. Without evidence it’s baseless.
There you go with those double standards again.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yeah, it shows. And it doesn't tell us much of anything. What specific animals are we talking about here? Which specific "creeping animals" are we talking about? Which specific "great sea creatures" are we talking about? You're going to need to produce something more substantial than this, given what you demand from the scientific community. Come on now, you want to live up to your own standards, don't you?
Well, there is no evidence indicating that Moses ever existed in the first place. And the Bible does not accurately reflect the "order of creation" of the universe and the earth and all life.
That's funny because I've had other people tell me that they were literal 24 hour days. So who do I believe, how can I check that, and how can anyone demonstrate that it's anything beyond personal belief and conjecture?
ecco
Veteran Member
Same old boring "I believe in God because God is great, everything else is wrong".You seem to think that water "happened" for no apparent reason. It exists because the materials needed to construct it were put in place by someone who is the greatest scientist in existence.
How much water is on this planet? How much of it is consumable by land dwellers? Does precipitation just magically take water from the ocean into the clouds, minus the salt, and then deposit fresh water into lakes and rivers for creatures to drink? Is that just a convenient accident? Wouldn't evolution design creatures that could exist by consuming salty water?
Who created the building blocks that make matter into all we see? What would life be like if we had no senses to discern the world around us? No sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell...? Why does nature have to be beautiful to sustain life? How is beauty determined?
Are you really that blind? Do you not go deeper that the surface?
Building codes exist in everything living. DNA is a code that transfers information from one living being into the creation of another...perfectly replicating a copy of its 'parents'. Clearly defined creatures breed only their own kind because they are programmed to do so. Just a fluke?
How many computer programs do you know of that needed no programmer? How many programmers do you know of who are unintelligent?
So we have to ask....is science itself into "poofing" now? All these things just popped up out of nowhere...for no apparent reason to become all that we see in the natural world? Seriously???
ecco
Veteran Member
Welcome to the discussion. It seems you get your information from the same Creationist websites that Deeje uses.
Dejee said "evolutionary scientists, who always get angry" at the mention of abiogenesis.
I corrected her by stating "No scientists get angry when the subject of abiogenesis is raised".
Do you understand what "no scientists" means? Do you understand that "no scientists" includes "evolutionary scientists".
Your "they don’t like it" is just as assinine as Dejee's "always get angry".
For some strange reason you confuse people explaining abiogenesis is not the same as evolution with people getting angry.
Do we occasionally lose our patience with anti-science people making the same silly ignorant argument repeatedly? Yes. However, with Deeje and you, I have been patient. That patience stems more from respect for the rules of the forum than respect for your willfully ignorant mindset and comments.
ecco
Veteran Member
If you were correct...
Newton - Thought Experiment -
Why does the speed of a ball rolling down an incline vary with the degree of the incline?
God controls the speed of all balls rolling down all inclines.
Research Complete. Thought Experiment Complete.
ecco
Veteran Member
The message we get, from your postings, is that you deny anything and everything that conflicts with your Creationist mindset.
ecco
Veteran Member
Really? You want to compare the honesty of tens of thousands of scientists (many of whom are Christians) vs the honesty of a JW indoctrinated poster. That's a no-brainer.
ETA: Another example of your blatant dishonesty.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
EVIDENCE! Lots and lots of EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE accumulated by tens of thousands of scientists in multiple fields of specialization.
Where is the research that provides evidence for ID? Who are the
Yup - ya got nuttin (except your JW indoctrination).
ecco
Veteran Member
Who? You attribute knowledge and authorship to a fictional character. Please show
ecco
Veteran Member
As I said:
That patience stems more from respect for the rules of the forum than respect for your willfully ignorant mindset and comments.