Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fine tuning/ programming
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 91 of 123 (532190)
10-21-2009 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Percy
10-21-2009 8:48 PM


Sir Darwin's excellent response: I don't know!!!
Percy writes:
Once you see the full quote it becomes apparent that Darwin's thinking process as he wrote this was, "I have such an excellent response to this objection that I shall raise it myself!"
Exactly, and his "excellent response" is based on his own assumptions. And its the same old "mutation and selection" answer.
What intrigues me though is how Darwin chooses to ignore the origin of life question. And in this case, he doesn't care to investigate the origin of light sensitive cells. He says... yeah we observe simpler light sensitive cells in lower forms, these evolved, and now I present to you the perfect and complex human eye. What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how life began??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 10-21-2009 8:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Coyote, posted 10-21-2009 11:33 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2009 3:27 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 94 by Parasomnium, posted 10-22-2009 4:36 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 96 by Larni, posted 10-22-2009 4:59 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 10-22-2009 6:11 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 92 of 123 (532200)
10-21-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pauline
10-21-2009 9:18 PM


Re: Sir Darwin's excellent response: I don't know!!!
What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how life began??
So what if he does?
Does that change one thing in the details of his theory of how life changed since its origin?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 9:18 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 123 (532218)
10-22-2009 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pauline
10-21-2009 9:18 PM


Re: Sir Darwin's excellent response: I don't know!!!
What intrigues me though is how Darwin chooses to ignore the origin of life question.
Perhaps you are equally intrigued as to how Newton chose to ignore the origin of mass question.
Or perhaps the theory of gravity is not contrary to your religious beliefs, so you don't choose to talk nonsense about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 9:18 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 94 of 123 (532222)
10-22-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pauline
10-21-2009 9:18 PM


Re: Sir Darwin's excellent response: I don't know!!!
Dr. Sing writes:
What intrigues me though is how Darwin chooses to ignore the origin of life question. [...] What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how life began??
Dr. Sing, allow me to paraphrase what you just said, not to aggravate you, but to elicit a reasonable response from you. So here goes:
"What intrigues me though is how Dr. Sing chooses to ignore the origin of God question. [...] What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how God began??"
You see, the problem is not that you want us to explain the origin of life (although that has no bearing on the theory of evolution, as has been explained many times before). The simple answer is that as yet science has no adequate explanation of the origin of life, period. Admittedly, it's not very satisfactory, but that's the way it is.
The real problem is that you don't see that your alternative for the origin of life, God, is not an adequate explanation either. To explain one complex phenomenon, life, you advance another, supposedly even more complex phenomenon, namely God. So if you grant yourself the right to ask us to explain the origin of life, aren't we entitled to the same right and ask you to explain your version of the origin of life? Can you explain God?
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 9:18 PM Pauline has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 95 of 123 (532223)
10-22-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Pauline
10-21-2009 7:12 PM


tetanus wha?
Dr. Sing writes:
FYI, tetanus is not caused by bacteria or virus. Infact, tetanus is a direct result of bad nervous input (to put it is layman's terms).
Er, not to burst your bubble (and I'm not a doctor) but why is tetanus recorded as being caused by bacteria?
quote:
Tetanus is an infectious disease caused by contamination of wounds from bacteria that live in the soil. The causative bacterium Clostridium tetani is a hardy organism capable of living many years in the soil in a form called a spore. The bacterium was first isolated in 1899 by S. Kitasato while he was working with R. Koch in Germany. Kitasato also found the toxin responsible for tetanus and developed the first protective vaccine against the disease.
(that's from http://www.emedicinehealth.com/tetanus/article_em.htm which may not be perfect - I don't know - but I find it hard to believe they'd just "make shit up").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 7:12 PM Pauline has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by davisjames, posted 09-21-2010 1:18 AM greyseal has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 96 of 123 (532225)
10-22-2009 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pauline
10-21-2009 9:18 PM


Re: Sir Darwin's excellent response: I don't know!!!
What intrigues me though is how Darwin chooses to ignore the origin of life question.
You must know that ToE does not concern itself with Abiogenesis: it could be a natural or a supernatural event but it has no bearing on ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 9:18 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 97 of 123 (532230)
10-22-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pauline
10-21-2009 9:18 PM


Re: Sir Darwin's excellent response: I don't know!!!
Dr. Sing writes:
Exactly, and his "excellent response" is based on his own assumptions.
Actually, you quoted that passage to indicate how "unsure of his own theory he was" when it did no such thing. Do note, though, that as with many men of true scientific temperament and great knowledge, Darwin tended to express himself tentatively.
Darwin's inferences were based upon the then available evidence, not assumptions, but interestingly, no evidence discovered since that time has led us to question those inferences.
And its the same old "mutation and selection" answer.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I get so bored with those same old "germ theory of disease" and "Big Bang" theories. Time for a change. Never mind that evolution, germ theory and the Big Bang accurately model reality. They've had their day, it's time for new theories to take the stage and hang accuracy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 9:18 PM Pauline has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 98 of 123 (532246)
10-22-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Pauline
10-21-2009 7:12 PM


The first assumption is that there was a "already existing" protein channel..... whose gene mutated and thus the cell gave birth to an ion channel.
This isn't an assumption; there had to have been a protein channel simply because a cell would have no other way of receiving nutrients otherwise. Remember, I said that the cell membrane is only semi-permeable, meaning that it only allows certain molecules to diffuse across the membrane while other molecules are prevented by the structure of the membrane. Those molecules that are can't diffuse across the membrane include amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins, and ions. If there were no pores or gates to allow those molecules into and out of the cell through the membrane, how would the cell receive nutrients and remove waste?
I could simply ask you, 1. how do you know how many mutations might have been required to achieve this? If you know anything about ion channels, you know that they are extremly specific in their function implying specificity in the genes encoding them too.
I don't know for certain how many mutations are required to change a channel into an ion channel as I am not a geneticist. But I know how many genetic mutations are required for Long QT syndrome to arise. One. And that's a single mutation that affects the repolarization of the heart. If a single genetic mutation can change such a complex system as the human heart, then why can't a single mutation change a simpler system like changing a channel for proteins into one for ions?
And we don't know if mutations occured that natural selection was not in favor of and eliminated the ion channel...We could speculate...since the unicellular ogranism needs H+ ions to maintain its pH, and other ions to maintain osmotic pressure, and since ion channels provide a great way for ion uptake, they were selected for by natural selection. But the problem is, if the organism needed these processes to even survive, how could it have survived until it "created" these processes?
You're making the assumption that the first cells couldn't survive without the structure we associate with cells today. Bear in mind that the environment 3.5 billion years ago was dramatically different than it is now. It's conceivable that the protocells could survive in that environment but developed structures that improved upon their survivability. So the fact that you assume the early cells could not survive without those structures in place now bears no relation to what is actually true of the first protocells. Since we have no fossils of the earliest lifeforms, I will, instead, look at the earliest cells that are similar to the cells of today. With the cell membrane already in place, the only explanation you would need for the mutation of ion channels to spread throughout a single-cellular population is an evolutionary advantage, which you yourself provided - that ion exchange allows for the ability to maintain pH and osmotic pressure.
Again, you are assuming that action potential provided an evoltuionary advantage for unicells, but I ask how?
Action potential may not be an evolutionary advantage for single-celled organisms, but ion exchange is, as you have mentioned. The leap from ion exchange to action potential is extremely {small}*, and one can imagine that a multi-celled organism with rapid communication between cells has an evolutionary advantage over a multi-celled organism with slower communication between cells. Since action potential is dependent upon ion exchange, and since ion exchange would already be present in single-celled organism due to its evolutionary advantages, a mutation or two could give cells the ability to communicate through action potential.
Similarity doesn't always imply an evoltutionary relationship... Again, a recognizable pattern implies prior thought. If you say "no, how do you know???? thats arguing from incredulity"...then I'll say, the fact that the same recognizable pattern appears in three diff. muscle types yet makes them functionally different implies prior thought/planning.
But you're assuming that, under evolution, changes to a previous patterns would create totally new patterns. In fact, evolutionary theory would suggest that parts that have similar function would be similar in structure, even across organisms. This is due to incremental changes to the existing structures. Similarity does imply an evolutionary relationship. As changes accumulate, the original structure isn't lost, but rather built upon. So, in fact, evolutionary theory does explain the similarities of smooth, cardiac, and skeletal muscle.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the functions of skeletal, cardiac, and smooth muscles are, but how they operate and they all operate in similar fashion; that is, they all contract. The fact that all the muscles are similar in structure and operation is evidence for evolution. Under evolution, new functions are taken up by existing structures that are eventually improved upon to increase their efficacy in that new function. So, in fact, we would expect to see structural and operational similarities in different parts, which we do.
So my question to you is this: What rationale do you present to support your argument that an intelligent designer would use structurally and operationally similar parts for different functions? Wouldn't an intelligent designer have used structurally and operationally different parts for different functions? Your way seems to be a case for a lazy designer.
quote:
Do you mean "leaky" potassium channels? You never mentioned "leaky" sodium channels.
I'm sorry, I don't see how "leaky" potassium channels create the heart's rhythm. The rhythm of the heart (here, I'm assuming you mean heartbeat) is set by the pacemaker cells which are typically the cells that undergo depolarization the fastest, right? Those cells are typically found in the SA Node, right?
Nope, I mean leaky Na+ channels. Oh my dear, Izanagi, do me a favor and read this.
I read your link. Let me quote something from that page:
quote:
SA node = has the highest or fastest rhythm &, therefore, sets the pace or rate of contraction for the entire heart. As a result, the SA node is commonly referred to as the PACEMAKER.
So I'm not sure why you sent me to that link. Your own link proved my point that the SA Node sets the heart's rhythm because it has the highest and fastest rhythm and is therefore called the pacemaker. So thank you for proving my point.
I just want to highlight one point mentioned in the article. Troponin, a major protein involved in muscle contraction is absent in smooth muscle but present and critical in cardiac muscle. So, one can ask, where did cardiac muscle get troponin from if it evolved from smooth muscle. Natural selection has nothing to say until we have even formed something called troponin. Do you see it?
The same way a single fertilized egg becomes a fetus. The genes code for certain amino acids which are combined to create proteins which are then used for various functions. A mutation in the genes for building the heart could have allowed for the use of troponin in the structure of the heart. That addition would have granted the resulting organism better fitness and likely better chances at reproduction, allowing that particular mutation to spread throughout the population.
Remember, nothing "evolves" chemicals. What we do is mutate to produce different chemicals than what was originally supposed to be used. And we see that mutations do have an effect on how the body produces chemicals that the body uses. So a mutation could have caused a developing embryo to produce troponin and utilize it rather than something else.
You made a fallacy too, my friend. You compared smooth and cardiac muscles and magically concluded that smooth muscle in the simpler of the two.
Apologies. I should have said that smooth muscle is the earliest form as it is present in invertebrates.
With limitations. There's only a certain degree of positive complexity that random processes can bring. Once you pass that degree, intelligence has to kick in or otherwise no further meaning can be derived. Complexity can be meaningful or meaningless. A bunch of dice scattered on a table is a complex arrangement, but does it follow a pattern? No. Does it convey meaning? Absolutely not. But, a bunch of dice with the three black dots facing upward and arranged in a straight line follows a recognizable pattern, it conveys meaning. And if one has atleast two neurons in their brain, they will infer to the best explanation: inteliigence, and not randomness. I hope this analogy will cause you to re-think your faulty conclusions about random processes and complexity.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to apply meaning beyond what we can see. And in fact, your example is false because we are the ones who applied meaning to those dots. Throw the same dice in front of someone who doesn't know what dice are, and it would be meaningless to them. To them, it's nonsense.
Now, if you were to see the aftermath of a hurricane, would you assume an intelligence behind that destruction, or would you say it was a natural disaster? What meaning would you attach to that event?
The fact that complex systems have any meaning at all is because WE attach significance to those systems. And that's what you have done - you have attached more meaning to a complex system than what is there. But whether or not we attach significance to those systems doesn't matter to the fact that complex systems are a result of interactions between simpler systems. Whether we are here or not to attach significance to those complex processes, the earth will still go around the sun, the sun will still go around the milky way center, etc. Anyone with more than two neurons in their brain would know know that, when talking science, you should never attach more significance than is already there.
By logic, the FSM that existed would be more perfect than one that did not exist. This is the essence of the ontological argument. Now, do you have any observed evidence for the FSM's existence? Absolutely not! Therefore, your FSM deity is imaginary.
Prove to me that there has been no evidence for the existence of the FSM and that there is evidence for the existence of your deity. If this debate has now dissolved into ontology and you are going to stop arguing scientifically, then I can, and will, argue that the FSM is responsible for the complexity of the heart. In fact, everything complex thing you see is a direct result of the goodness of the FSM and his desire to work for our benefits. All the bad things you see are a result of people's denial in the goodness of the FSM and their unconscious desire to rebel against him. Henderson was the prophet of the FSM and the desire of the FSM to reveal himself to the world. Now, prove me wrong, logically.
If you cannot prove me wrong logically, then I would suggest that we not delve into ontological arguments and just debate the science.
And may I remind you, your theory is based on assumptions; and so is the entire evolutionary theory. Now you may have evidence to support the evolutionary theory but certainly not all of the evidence is in support of it. (if it were, evolution would no longer be a "theory")
And with this statement, I can see that your understanding of science is less than minimal. Let me ask you this, do you think the Germ Theory of disease is just a "theory?" Is the Theory of Gravity just a "theory?"
Environment pushes the drive for improvements forward; and new improvements pushes the environment to compete. It's a constant race with one pulling the other and that's what evolution is - the results of that race. There are no assumptions in evolutionary theory has that can match the assumptions you make for a designer. The fact is, the argument for God as designer requires many assumptions, not least of which is the assumption that the book you are basing your belief is true. Evolution, on the other hand, makes no assumptions as it is an explanation for observable data.
The reason why evolution is a theory is because it is falsifiable. We can go out there and make observations and collect data in the natural world and try to disprove evolution. The reason why God is not a theory is because we can't disprove the existence of God just like you can't disprove the existence of the FSM.
But in science, a theory is the highest attainable status. That alone should tell you how well evolution has stood up to all the evidence.
I believe that all of us have adequately explained how the complex heart could arise. The fact is that our heart is the result of eons of accumulated changes from a simplistic tube to what it is now. Evolutionary theory suggests similarity across the board, which I have shown you. The problem is, I am not a geneticist, nor is our understanding of genetics complete so I couldn't tell you the genes you would need to change to produce those results. But we know enough about genetics to know that a single mutation can have a profound impact on an individual. If one mutation can affect an organism so greatly, why can't one mutation change the structure of an organ slightly?
Ultimately, the evidence for evolution is strong whereas the evidence for a deity is non-existent. Remembering that science is about what is falsifiable, to argue a deity is to stop arguing through science because there is no way we can prove a deity doesn't exist. Regardless of the existence of a deity, the falsifiable naturalistic explanation is the focus of science and that is why evolution is science. The fact that you can say that you didn't "create" God without evidence for that statement shows why religion has no place in science.
(I am not going to edit this further so I apologize if it seems a bit unwieldy or disorganized.)
*: ABE
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 7:12 PM Pauline has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 99 of 123 (532720)
10-26-2009 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Pauline
10-21-2009 7:12 PM


I personally have never conjured up a God in my mind. He did not origniate in my thoughts, I came to know Him through an outside source namely the Bible. Now there are other religions (including your satirical Pastafarianism) like Hinduism for example that make a great effort to "create" deity. I've lived in India for more than 10 years and have seen Hindusim practised. Its all about creating an idol, pronouncing it God, and worshiping it. Apparently, deity is non pre-existent in their minds. And thats clearly faulty thinking. Not the case with Christianity though. Anyway, I fear the wrath of the mods if I talk too much about deity in this particular forum.
ME sez:
Then you went about those 10 years blindfolding your eyes and mind. Talk about deities but let it be informed talk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 7:12 PM Pauline has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 100 of 123 (536365)
11-22-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Pauline
10-10-2009 5:02 PM


So your god is a lot like you just more complex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 5:02 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Pauline, posted 11-22-2009 10:34 AM tsig has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 101 of 123 (536373)
11-22-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by tsig
11-22-2009 8:10 AM


So your god is a lot like you just more complex.
If God could be understood by humans whose defense is their limited understanding, God is not God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by tsig, posted 11-22-2009 8:10 AM tsig has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Parasomnium, posted 11-23-2009 8:06 AM Pauline has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 102 of 123 (536460)
11-23-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Pauline
11-22-2009 10:34 AM


We have a definition
Dr. Sing writes:
If God could be understood by humans whose defense is their limited understanding, God is not God.
Well, that would give us the following definition of God:
God is that which cannot be understood by humans with their limited understanding.
With this definition in hand we can easily dismiss any and all assertions that this or that is "the will of God".
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Pauline, posted 11-22-2009 10:34 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Pauline, posted 11-23-2009 9:26 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 103 of 123 (536467)
11-23-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Parasomnium
11-23-2009 8:06 AM


Re: We have a definition
Paramsomnium writes:
God is that which cannot be understood by humans with their limited understanding.
With this definition in hand we can easily dismiss any and all assertions that this or that is "the will of God".
One, The above mentioned "definition" is absolutely not the definition of God. Two, knowing who God is (as in His nature, attributes, abilities, limitations (if any) etc) and knowing the will of God are two different things. The latter can be achieved only by knowing God. But knowing God can happen only if God chooses to reveal His attributes to man. Agree? Consider this,if man lists the attributes of God, are they not what his picture of God is? And is that not a subjective basis by which to "define" God? On the contrary, if God reveals Himself, for example, through Scripture, that description is true. And on this basis, is not human understanding not only limited, but also incapable of ever defining God? Instead, looking to Scripture for a knowledge of God seems the right thing to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Parasomnium, posted 11-23-2009 8:06 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Son, posted 11-23-2009 10:11 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 104 of 123 (536474)
11-23-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Pauline
11-23-2009 9:26 AM


Re: We have a definition
I think I need to point this out, you first wrote this about Darwin (message 89):
Dr.Sing writes:
Anyway, foremost IDsts may think one thing about the heart or eye and so on and you might expect me to just follow their footsteps but the fact that Darwin himself said this: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." is indicative of how unsure of his own theory he was.
Percy answered you by using Darwin's full quote and saying (message 90):
Percy writes:
Once you see the full quote it becomes apparent that Darwin's thinking process as he wrote this was, "I have such an excellent response to this objection that I shall raise it myself!"
You then answer this (message 91):
Dr.Sing writes:
Exactly, and his "excellent response" is based on his own assumptions. And its the same old "mutation and selection" answer.
What intrigues me though is how Darwin chooses to ignore the origin of life question. And in this case, he doesn't care to investigate the origin of light sensitive cells. He says... yeah we observe simpler light sensitive cells in lower forms, these evolved, and now I present to you the perfect and complex human eye. What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how life began??
In short, you first affirmed that Darwin was unsure of his theory by quote mining him. When Percy proves you wrong, you ignore that he did just that and goes on as if you never quote mined Darwin in the first place. You then proceed to completely change the subject with abiogenesis.
It seems that you are Christian, so how would you call what you just did?
I felt the need to point it out because in my experience, using such techniques often renders the discussion useless and if you persist in this, the thread is as good as closed in my eyes. I read those threads to be better informed, not to be misinformed and lied to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Pauline, posted 11-23-2009 9:26 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 105 of 123 (548403)
02-27-2010 12:50 PM


Prove to me that there has been no evidence for the existence of the FSM and that there is evidence for the existence of your deity. If this debate has now dissolved into ontology and you are going to stop arguing scientifically, then I can, and will, argue that the FSM is responsible for the complexity of the heart. In fact, everything complex thing you see is a direct result of the goodness of the FSM and his desire to work for our benefits. All the bad things you see are a result of people's denial in the goodness of the FSM and their unconscious desire to rebel against him. Henderson was the prophet of the FSM and the desire of the FSM to reveal himself to the world. Now, prove me wrong, logically.
Well, first of all, I apologize for returning to this thread after a "long" time. And I don't know if anyone is interested in this thread anymore but I feel really bad for leaving it without a last word. Apologies. I wasn't trying to escape the discussion. And I actually feel quite inadequate to answer some of the questions posed to me. Like, "prove God exists", "why did God choose to use the same mechanism for different structures i.e the lazy god idea", things like that. However, I've returned to say a few things.
The God of the Bible is worshipped by far more people than the FSM. There is historical evidence to back up Jesus' physical, human existence. Why do you use B.C and A.D? The Bible was written about one man- Jesus Christ; 40 human beings over a span of 1500 years, never having lived in the same era, all wrote about one man. Compare this to the Quran, the Bhagvad gita...don't you see the difference? Even though people tried to eradicate Christianity by killing Christians their number only kept increasing. Today, people report feeling a sense of peace and hope when they believe in Jesus. They have a reason for everything they do, for life, for love, for death, for charity, for education. As an atheist, why do think murder is "bad" and charity is "love"? Why a sense of morality? Because of Genetics? Which gene? Why do you feel sad when a loved one dies? Why is death a sad thing? If you think we live in a terrible world and God doesn't care, why aren't atheists committing suicide by extravagant numbers? Do you fear death? Do you want new and improved medicine to keep you healthy? Why? Why? I though you thought this world was a disgusting place and that God is bad. How do you explain abstract qualities like character and knowledge? How did they originate? FSM? Christianity has an answer. In the beginning God created...
There is tangible, proven, historical evidence for the existence of people mentioned in the Bible, Nebuchnezzar, Kind David to name a few. And the evidence today agrees with what is mentioned in the Bible about them.
And with this statement, I can see that your understanding of science is less than minimal. Let me ask you this, do you think the Germ Theory of disease is just a "theory?" Is the Theory of Gravity just a "theory?"
Environment pushes the drive for improvements forward; and new improvements pushes the environment to compete. It's a constant race with one pulling the other and that's what evolution is - the results of that race. There are no assumptions in evolutionary theory has that can match the assumptions you make for a designer. The fact is, the argument for God as designer requires many assumptions, not least of which is the assumption that the book you are basing your belief is true. Evolution, on the other hand, makes no assumptions as it is an explanation for observable data.
The reason why evolution is a theory is because it is falsifiable. We can go out there and make observations and collect data in the natural world and try to disprove evolution. The reason why God is not a theory is because we can't disprove the existence of God just like you can't disprove the existence of the FSM.
But in science, a theory is the highest attainable status. That alone should tell you how well evolution has stood up to all the evidence.
I believe that all of us have adequately explained how the complex heart could arise. The fact is that our heart is the result of eons of accumulated changes from a simplistic tube to what it is now. Evolutionary theory suggests similarity across the board, which I have shown you. The problem is, I am not a geneticist, nor is our understanding of genetics complete so I couldn't tell you the genes you would need to change to produce those results. But we know enough about genetics to know that a single mutation can have a profound impact on an individual. If one mutation can affect an organism so greatly, why can't one mutation change the structure of an organ slightly?
Ultimately, the evidence for evolution is strong whereas the evidence for a deity is non-existent. Remembering that science is about what is falsifiable, to argue a deity is to stop arguing through science because there is no way we can prove a deity doesn't exist. Regardless of the existence of a deity, the falsifiable naturalistic explanation is the focus of science and that is why evolution is science. The fact that you can say that you didn't "create" God without evidence for that statement shows why religion has no place in science.
I say evolution is "just a theory" because:
1. There is no evidence to prove it.
-Yes, the finch story, neaderthal man, archeopteryx, fossil record and company are all but a desperate attempt to "FIND EVIDENCE". A successfully failed attempt, of course. You think microevolution produces different finch species? When you dissect finch tummies, you find the same food stuff. IF their beaks helped them to find food, why is isn't the food different. Birds that migrate. Which gene codes for "migration in winter"? Did it develop through mutations gradually? Well, did the bird fly for 5 miles or 40 miles or 1000 miles at once? Either she flew 1000 miles and got to her destination and benefitted from migration, or she flew 5 miles first and landed on the ocean waters and died. Why don't other species like gila monsters migrate too? Why only birds? Why doesn't the evolutionist migrate?
What do you mean by "fit"? A organism that survives, right? Well, who are the ones that survive? The fit. What a wonderful tautology!
2. The phenomenon of irreducible complexity (explained by Behe) disproves evolution. There is evidence for structures that when deprived of their smallest constituent will cease to function. In that sense, these structures have started out as complex. Evolution cannot accept that, its got to be simple right? Well, most things (like flagella) aren't really that simple on planet earth.
I agree that God is not falsifiable. Neither is He empirically observed. Which "necessitates" us to switch our thinking into the realm of the supernatural. Our minds don't meet here, evolutionist/atheist. I think in terms of the supernatural, you the natural. I have not a problem with faith, you a BIG problem. I think there is an authority beyond science to know truth, you think science IS truth. Tell me, how do I prove to you God Jesus exists? I can't. He's not physical anymore. I can't go find God in Galilee or Bethlehem. But I'll tell you one thing, I KNOW God lives in my heart. And I've seen Him change my life. I know I'm not offering you empirical proof as you would like. But I offer you all the proof I have: my own life, changed by God, lived for Him and with Him in complete bliss.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 2:06 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2010 2:31 PM Pauline has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024