Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?
Jimlad
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 126 (1746)
01-09-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by John Paul
01-09-2002 9:26 AM


JP, what everyone is getting at is if life was designed, who designed it? And who designed the designer? etc. etc. etc. Sooner or later a god has to be invoked...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 9:26 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 10:23 AM Jimlad has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 126 (1751)
01-09-2002 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Jimlad
01-09-2002 10:19 AM


jimlad:
JP, what everyone is getting at is if life was designed, who designed it?
John Paul:
That is irrelevant. We do NOT need to know the designer to determine design.
jimlad:
And who designed the designer? etc. etc. etc. Sooner or later a god has to be invoked...
John Paul:
More irrelevance. Please explain why you think that matters in order to deduce design, figure out the function and learn how to maintain that function.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Jimlad, posted 01-09-2002 10:19 AM Jimlad has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 126 (1752)
01-09-2002 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by John Paul
01-09-2002 9:26 AM


Ok bud is there any other solution to the nature of the designer than "supernatural entity" that is not in turn IC?
If there isnt then how is this not a strong inference of goddidit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 9:26 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 10:45 AM joz has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 126 (1755)
01-09-2002 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by joz
01-09-2002 10:23 AM


I doesn't matter if God did it or not, if the designer is a supernatural entity or not, in order to determine design. It also doesn't matter how life started, what/ who designed the designer etc. All that matters (as far as I can tell) is we are able to determine its (the design's) function and how to maintain it.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by joz, posted 01-09-2002 10:23 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 12:01 PM John Paul has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 126 (1759)
01-09-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Quetzal
01-09-2002 3:56 AM


Quetzal,
I knew what Irreducable complexity was, just never made the connection! Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Quetzal, posted 01-09-2002 3:56 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 126 (1765)
01-09-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by John Paul
01-09-2002 10:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]I doesn't matter if God did it or not, if the designer is a supernatural entity or not, in order to determine design.[/QUOTE]
Really? How so? How does one determine if something is designed or if it came about by natural processes?
[QUOTE]It also doesn't matter how life started, what/ who designed the designer etc. All that matters (as far as I can tell) is we are able to determine its (the design's) function and how to maintain it.
[/b]
If it doesn't matter if Godidit or not, then why send me to Christian "scientific" Creationist sites?
If you don't think that the Bible should be taken as a scientific document, then why do you have a problem with the idea of common descent and the ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 10:45 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 12:53 PM nator has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 126 (1768)
01-09-2002 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by nator
01-09-2002 12:01 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
I doesn't matter if God did it or not, if the designer is a supernatural entity or not, in order to determine design.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Really? How so? How does one determine if something is designed or if it came about by natural processes?
John Paul:
For one you could run it through Dembski's Design Explanatory filter and see what you get.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also doesn't matter how life started, what/ who designed the designer etc. All that matters (as far as I can tell) is we are able to determine its (the design's) function and how to maintain it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
If it doesn't matter if Godidit or not, then why send me to Christian "scientific" Creationist sites?
John Paul:
And by the same token why do want me to believe that all of life's diversity arose from some as yet unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce?
schraf:
If you don't think that the Bible should be taken as a scientific document, then why do you have a problem with the idea of common descent and the ToE?
John Paul:
Who said the Bible was a scientific document? Not I. The Bible is a collection of historical & philosophical documents. And guess what? It has been verified using science. Imagine that!
Further I don't see that the alleged evidence for CD/ToE is very compelling. Add that to the fact it doesn't matter at what life started in order to resolve its function and maintenace of.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 12:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by mark24, posted 01-09-2002 8:48 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 105 by nator, posted 01-10-2002 1:45 PM John Paul has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 102 of 126 (1795)
01-09-2002 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by John Paul
01-09-2002 12:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Who said the Bible was a scientific document? Not I. The Bible is a collection of historical & philosophical documents. And guess what? It has been verified using science. Imagine that!
quote:
All of it? Or just the bits that happen to correspond with science? The Biblical Flood MOST CERTAINLY HASN'T. Nor has 6 DAY GENESIS. Am I leaving any important bits out?
Good grief, what a ridiculous claim.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 12:53 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 103 of 126 (1799)
01-09-2002 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by mark24
01-07-2002 4:34 PM


quote:
Mark: To clarify, are you saying the message/code transmission receives itself?
What I gave was one possible sender/receiver relationship. Are you denying the ribosome and its accompanying support structure deciphers the genetic code to produce an amino-acid string? The intermediate sender is the nucleus, the ultimate sender is a higher intelligence who programmed the DNA.
quote:
Is there any other natural, or non-natural process where a transmission receives itself?
The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission.
There are countless examples of products of transmission of code that are receivers; in fact, ALL receivers are products of transmission of code! There are NO exceptions! If you can find one, then by golly you will surely get a nobel prize!
quote:
This definition of new information is incredibly narrow & specific, & only applies to codons.
This definition I used does not only apply to codons. It applies to anything that is a code: morse, C++, PowerPC machine language, english language, etc.
It is not possible to define all aspects of information in short posts to discussion boards on the internet. Information theory requires books to understand, and there are different levels of information. That is the reason I chose to focus on a specific aspect of information, a code, that is more easily understood by the layman. There is not an information scientist in the world who disputes that a code represents complex information.
For those interested in information science, the lowest level is the Shannon level, and Dr Tom Schnieder has a good discussion of it here:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/latex/index.html
Dembski does a good job of qualifying complex information:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign2.html
IMO the best treatise on information science can be found in Dr Werner Gitt’s book, In the Beginning was Information.
http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?creationSTORE:home
Dr Royal Truman discusses some of Gitt’s work here (about half-way down):
http://www.trueorigins.org/dawkinfo.asp
[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 01-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mark24, posted 01-07-2002 4:34 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by mark24, posted 01-09-2002 9:50 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 106 by derwood, posted 01-10-2002 2:15 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 108 by mark24, posted 01-10-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 104 of 126 (1800)
01-09-2002 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Fred Williams
01-09-2002 9:41 PM


Fred,
Thanks for the links, as I say, you piqued my interest, I'll give the sites a good look in to.
'Though an absolute "new information" definition I still require, pls.
Mark
(edited due to drunkeness)
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-09-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Fred Williams, posted 01-09-2002 9:41 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 105 of 126 (1833)
01-10-2002 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by John Paul
01-09-2002 12:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul: I doesn't matter if God did it or not, if the designer is a supernatural entity or not, in order to determine design.
quote:
schraf:Really? How so? How does one determine if something is designed or if it came about by natural processes?
quote:
John Paul:For one you could run it through Dembski's Design Explanatory filter and see what you get.
The part that is missing from Debski's filter is any allowance for saying "I don't know", or "we don't know yet".
Let me ask the question in a different, less easily-avoided way:
How can I tell the difference between something that MUST be intelligently-designed, and a natural process that we don't understand yet?
If there is no way to tell the difference, then hopw can one EVER tell if somthing was designed, for sure?
quote:
JP: It also doesn't matter how life started, what/ who designed the designer etc. All that matters (as far as I can tell)is we are able to determine its (the design's) function and how to maintain it.
quote:
Schraf:If it doesn't matter if Godidit or not, then why send me to Christian "scientific" Creationist sites?
quote:
John Paul:And by the same token why do want me to believe that all of life's diversity arose from some as yet unknownpopulation(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce?
You avoided answering my question, so I'll ask it again:
If it doesn't matter if Godidit or not, then why send me to Christian "scientific" Creationist sites? Now answer the question honestly instead of avoiding it.
As for the second part of your question, I don't care what you believe or if you accept the evidence for Evolution. I care about the misrepresentation of science that you have been perpetrating, and I also care about the attempt by the Religious Right to co-opt the trappings and language of science to further it's own religious/political agenda.
You are free to believe any religious teaching that you want to. You just cannot say it is science, because it is most certainly not science.
quote:
schraf:If you don't think that the Bible should be taken as a scientific document, then why do you have a problem with the idea of common descent and the ToE?
quote:
John Paul:Who said the Bible was a scientific document? Not I. The Bible is a collection of historical & philosophical documents. And guess what? It has been verified using science. Imagine that!
LOL!! Do you think that something becomes true if you say it out loud, or repeat it often enough?
Talking donkeys and bushes have been verified by science? How about rabbits chewing their cud? I suppose that science has verified that bats are actually birds, too? The plagues of Moses were verified by science? Noah's Ark has been reportedly found at least 6 times in my lifetime, yet we never see it on display in any museum anywhere. (funny, that) The virgin birth and Jesus' resurection are scientifically-documented, too?
quote:
Further I don't see that the alleged evidence for CD/ToE is very compelling.
I do not think you look at the evidence honestly. I do not think you have doen much, if any, study of Biology, geology, or science in general. I think you confine yourself to reading that which confirms your preconceived notions about what you would like to be true. I know that you have not presented yourself as a straightforward debater, as you tend to avoid direct questions, and you tend to avoid talking about specific points of evidence. When cornered, you simply say; "It didn't/doesn't happen" or somesuch, or you ignore the points.
There are many questions that you just don't answer, because you can't, but yet you do not honestly say that you can't answer them.
I think that you are more interested in hunkering down with your preferred belief and defending that belief, no matter what mental gymnastics you have to do to avoid really looking at the evidence.
quote:
Add that to the fact it doesn't matter at what life started in order to resolve its function and maintenace of.
The question of how life started is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE deals with life once it got here.
If your problem is only with Abiogenesis then why do you have a problem with the ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 12:53 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 2:16 PM nator has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 106 of 126 (1839)
01-10-2002 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Fred Williams
01-09-2002 9:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

IMO the best treatise on information science can be found in Dr Werner Gitt’s book, In the Beginning was Information.
http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?creationSTORE:home

Gitt is a creationist information technologist. I would not waste the time to read his book. None of his musings on the topic seems to have made it into the reaidong lists of any information science department.
Gitt tries to disprove evolution via definiton, and the creationists buy into it. For instance, he claims that all information must come from a conscious mind. And since there is information in DNA, it must have come from a conscious mind!
The logic is unassailable!
Of course, one could always take a look at what dr.Tom Schneider thinks of Williams' musings:
http://www.fred.net/tds/anti/fred.williams/
Happy reading!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Fred Williams, posted 01-09-2002 9:41 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 126 (1840)
01-10-2002 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by nator
01-10-2002 1:45 PM


schraf:
I think that you are more interested in hunkering down with your preferred belief and defending that belief, no matter what mental gymnastics you have to do to avoid really looking at the evidence.
John Paul:
I can say the same thing about evolutionists.
schraf:
I do not think you look at the evidence honestly. I do not think you have doen much, if any, study of Biology, geology, or science in general.
John Paul:
And I really don't care what you think. I have 4 years of college biology and zoology. I also have a degree in engineering, which is applied science. To get that degree it is obvious I had exposure to and an understanding of, science. Just last year I receicved a big bonus and plaque that states "For excellence in your scientific approach to resolving the tough issues"
schraf:
I care about the misrepresentation of science that you have been perpetrating, and I also care about the attempt by the Religious Right to co-opt the trappings and language of science to further it's own religious/political agenda.
John Paul:
If you are calling the ToE 'science' then I say you are the one misrepresenting it. Also I am not part of the religious right.
schraf:
The question of how life started is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE deals with life once it got here.
John Paul:
Oh really? I heard that before. However I can site a well known biologist that states otherwise. "The evolutionist Kerkut defined this ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ He continued: ‘the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’"*
* Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960
schraf:
If your problem is only with Abiogenesis then why do you have a problem with the ToE?
John Paul:
I don't see the evidence as being compelling for either. I do see the evidence as being compelling for the Creation model of biological evolution though.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by nator, posted 01-10-2002 1:45 PM nator has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 108 of 126 (1855)
01-10-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Fred Williams
01-09-2002 9:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Are you denying the ribosome and its accompanying support structure deciphers the genetic code to produce an amino-acid string? The intermediate sender is the nucleus, the ultimate sender is a higher intelligence who programmed the DNA.

No, I don’t deny it, I made the point in the first place in message 65.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission.
There are countless examples of products of transmission of code that are receivers; in fact, ALL receivers are products of transmission of code! There are NO exceptions! If you can find one, then by golly you will surely get a nobel prize!

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission. Good point, I should have chosen my words more carefully.
I’ll try again.
Are there any natural or non-natural examples where the product of a transmission is received by, & decoded by the same transmission product, not involving genetic material?
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Fred said;
A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.
This definition I used does not only apply to codons. It applies to anything that is a code: morse, C++, PowerPC machine language, english language, etc.

I know I’m being pedantic, but this definition doesn’t apply to anything other than codons/DNA.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
It is not possible to define all aspects of information in short posts to discussion boards on the internet. Information theory requires books to understand, and there are different levels of information. That is the reason I chose to focus on a specific aspect of information, a code, that is more easily understood by the layman. There is not an information scientist in the world who disputes that a code represents complex information.

I don’t need to understand all information theory, I’m just after a definition.
I’ve checked your links, although interesting, don’t answer my question. This conversation can’t really progress unless we have an absolute definition of what new information actually is. The links you provided don’t even define information, except in a contextual way, let alone new information.
Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of new information doesn’t exist? Or even information, I understand that there are levels of information, but it is still information. Such a definition may have to be general, but can still be accurate.
Lastly, if I leave my house, open the front gate, & there is a pattern of twigs on the floor that say EAT, I then dutifully carry out this instruction by going inside & fixing a sandwich. How is this not message/information?
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Fred Williams, posted 01-09-2002 9:41 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
burntdaisy622
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 126 (84696)
02-09-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
12-17-2001 8:09 AM


I haven't read through this whole thread, but has anyone posed the question : Can evolutionists show that Creation never happend??
The simple truth is that absolute proof cannot be found for either of them. Science has never been able to show that life can come from something non living. They can try and try to heat up a rock as much as the want with in a controled environment, but no living cell has ever come from this. Ever. And how does a single cell organism become multicelled? ....and why would it? it does just fine as a single cell.... Anyway, isn't the valididty to scientific "truth" found when an something can be redone and redone and still turn out the same?
I am a creationist and have never claimed to have proof that evolution didn't happen and have never claimed to have testable proof that creation never happend. To be perfectly honest, I don't know for sure. The Bible says that a thousand days is one and one is a as a thousand to God. He could have set the earth in motion though evolution. I don't think that he did, but he could have. But it would have taken SOMETHING miraculous to get this whole thing goin. You have to have some amount of faith in the miraculous to beleive in either creation or evolution because there are unanswered problems with each.
Do you know how many scientists have set out to prove that creation is false and have ended up becoming some of the most devout christians? C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowel for example. Try reading "Mere Christianity" by Lewis or McDowel's "Case For Christ."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 12-17-2001 8:09 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2004 11:17 AM burntdaisy622 has not replied
 Message 111 by Asgara, posted 02-09-2004 3:33 PM burntdaisy622 has not replied
 Message 112 by mark24, posted 02-09-2004 3:33 PM burntdaisy622 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024