There are no gods

[luke1978]

How did this evolve:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjdPTY1wHdQ

or this:

I am in awe of God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F...eature=related

One cell is quite complex!

[Rose]

How did this evolve:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjdPTY1wHdQ

or this:

I am in awe of God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F...eature=related

One cell is quite complex!

Yes, indeed! One cell is quite complex with all its molecular machines. It's no wonder that it took billions of years for those cellular components to evolve. The first Prokaryotic cells began to arise about 3.5 billion years ago, whereas the first Eukaryotic cells appeared around 1.5 billion years ago...that means it took 2 billion years for a Prokaryotic cell to evolve into a Eukaryotic cell. Wow! 2 billion years...that's an incredibly long time.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I did NOT make that assertion, this was a quote from the evidence given on this site http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html This was ;posted on page 5, post #47. The quote was given backed with the evidence seen in the article. I thought you understood that, because it was clearly given WITHIN the article itself. It was not my assertion! Here is part of it below. The quote from the article is highlighted in red. (the numbers you see give the sources in the index of the article).

Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. [148] Many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. [149]


Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this “master program” could only have originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.

Dr. Wilder-Smith was an honored scientist with three earned doctorate degrees. He was well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What, in his considered opinion, was the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal?

“… an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA… is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information.” [150]

"As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell.

I hope this clears things up!

I knew you did not make that specific assertion as if you composed that quote yourself. I knew that you had simply copied the whole article from the Creationist website to which you gave a link. But when you post assertions by others to support your point of view and then emphasize a particular point in red, bold, underline, you are, in effect, making those assertions yourself. And now that I think about it, you did indeed make that assertion in your own words. Specifically: In post #24 your asserted "“matter” (molecules) does not nor cannot “create information” like that which exists in the life-force of DNA; there must be a designer. It takes a designer (a mind) to create information “outside” of matter to produce creation of that order." I responded in post #31 by asking you to "cite some scientifically reputable literature that claims and demonstrates that "matter cannot create information." You responded by copying an entire web page with a wide variety of quotes taken out of context with the one that you thought supported your assertion highlighted red, bold, underlined:

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. [149]

It would have been much better if you had cited just this one quote that was actually relevant to your specific argument. It almost satisfies my request, though I didn't recognize this at first because you didn't comment on it and it was buried under an avalanche of other quotes of dubious relevance. This is another reason why the quote mining is not helpful at all. You can't prove anything that way. You need to form reasoned arguments, not blizzards of uninterpreted information.

Now when I say that it "almost" satisfies my request, I mean that you have given the personal opinion of a legitimate scientist about the impossibility of abiogensis through "known physical laws." But your assertion that his opinion is to be taken as the final word on the subject is absurd, especially since he also has opinions on the same subject which you totally disagree with. For example, he says that Darwin's theory of evolution is "one of best supported theories in science." You take his opinion as ABSOLUTELY TRUE when you agree with him, and ABSOLUTELY FALSE when you disagree. You have simply set yourself up as the ULTIMATE JUDGE of all truth! Why bother quoting anyone? Why not just say "Because I said so" when someone challenges your opinion?

Now what I would really like to know is if you know anything about information. Can you define the "kind of information like that in DNA" and why it could not evolve? That's all that really matters - UNDERSTANDING. Do you understand your assertions, or are you just repeating what you've read on Creationist websites?

I really think this is a very important point. Please define what you mean by "information" and explain why it could not evolve.

Thanks!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How did this evolve:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjdPTY1wHdQ

or this:

I am in awe of God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F...eature=related

One cell is quite complex!

Hey there Luke,

I would like to know what alternative scenario you think is more likely than evolution. Do you think it is something like this?

"About 3.8 billion years ago, God directly acted on matter to construct the first prokaryote cell. Then he sat back and let the cells multiply for about a billion years. Then he tinkered with them so they could photosynthesize and sat back for another billion years. Then he directly acted on matter again to create the first eukaryote cell and sat back for yet about half a billion years. Then he got a rush of creativity and made the first multi-cellular organisms and after about half a billion years he finally perfected the Hox Genes Toolkit that is needed for all the bilateral body plans. This is when he really went nuts exploring every weird body plan you could imagine (Cambrian explosion). He let most of them go extinct for his own mysterious reasons. (Probably to confound atheists into thinking there is evidence for evolution.) And then he ..."

It would really help if you could explain the scenario that you really believe most accurately represents the history of life on this planet, and which takes into account the full sum of our current knowledge.



PS: I got the evolutionary timeline here.

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

I knew you did not make that specific assertion as if you composed that quote yourself. I knew that you had simply copied the whole article from the Creationist website to which you gave a link. But when you post assertions by others to support your point of view and then emphasize a particular point in red, bold, underline, you are, in effect, making those assertions yourself.

What? That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. The main point of discussion was highlighted for obvious reasons, to show where it was in the article. You, Rose and others routinely do this as well for the reason given.

And now that I think about it, you did indeed make that assertion in your own words. Specifically: In post #24 your asserted "“matter” (molecules) does not nor cannot “create information” like that which exists in the life-force of DNA; there must be a designer. It takes a designer (a mind) to create information “outside” of matter to produce creation of that order."

Yes I made that statement. I was paraphrasing what scientists (creationists and evolutionists alike) have concluded in the years of their studies, and especially since the finding and researching of the DNA cell. We all paraphrase at one time or another, or am I not entitled to paraphrase?

I responded in post #31 by asking you to "cite some scientifically reputable literature that claims and demonstrates that "matter cannot create information." You responded by copying an entire web page with a wide variety of quotes taken out of context with the one that you thought supported your assertion highlighted red, bold, underlined:

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. [149]

It would have been much better if you had cited just this one quote that was actually relevant to your specific argument. It almost satisfies my request, though I didn't recognize this at first because you didn't comment on it and it was buried under an avalanche of other quotes of dubious relevance. This is another reason why the quote mining is not helpful at all. You can't prove anything that way. You need to form reasoned arguments, not blizzards of uninterpreted information.

I gave you reputable literature (two sites) and quotes by both creationist and evolution scientists, its not my problem if you reject it all, I kept my end.

“You say I didn't recognize this at first because I didn't comment on it.” The whole point of giving that post was in answer to your question and that's the very reason I highlighted it in red, so that you could see the answer to your question. Not because “in effect I am making those assertions myself.”

Now when I say that it "almost" satisfies my request, I mean that you have given the personal opinion of a legitimate scientist about the impossibility of abiogensis through "known physical laws." But your assertion that his opinion is to be taken as the final word on the subject is absurd, especially since he also has opinions on the same subject which you totally disagree with. For example, he says that Darwin's theory of evolution is "one of best supported theories in science." You take his opinion as ABSOLUTELY TRUE when you agree with him, and ABSOLUTELY FALSE when you disagree. You have simply set yourself up as the ULTIMATE JUDGE of all truth! Why bother quoting anyone? Why not just say "Because I said so" when someone challenges your opinion?

When you read any article on the Bible, science etc., do you always agree with the author 100%? I doubt that very much. You take what you believe to be true of what the author is saying, and disagree with the rest. That is you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater do you? Of course not.

Now what I would really like to know is if you know anything about information. Can you define the "kind of information like that in DNA" and why it could not evolve? That's all that really matters - UNDERSTANDING. Do you understand your assertions, or are you just repeating what you've read on Creationist websites?

I really think this is a very important point. Please define what you mean by "information" and explain why it could not evolve.

Wiki can explain it much better than I can http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...liK_RXZzOXMATg (click "information" in article).

As for why it could not evolve, this site http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html gives detailed scientific reasons point by point as to why it could not have evolved. But you reject that evidence because it comes from a creationist site. In any case I answered your request.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I knew you did not make that specific assertion as if you composed that quote yourself. I knew that you had simply copied the whole article from the Creationist website to which you gave a link. But when you post assertions by others to support your point of view and then emphasize a particular point in red, bold, underline, you are, in effect, making those assertions yourself.

What? That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. The main point of discussion was highlighted for obvious reasons, to show where it was in the article. You, Rose and others routinely do this as well for the reason given.

Oh ... OK. So you weren't asserting that statement was true. Why then did you highlight it?

Maybe you should look up the meaning of "assert" - how's this?

assert (verb): State a fact or belief confidently and forcefully: "the company asserts that the cuts will not affect development".

And now that I think about it, you did indeed make that assertion in your own words. Specifically: In post #24 your asserted "“matter” (molecules) does not nor cannot “create information” like that which exists in the life-force of DNA; there must be a designer. It takes a designer (a mind) to create information “outside” of matter to produce creation of that order."

Yes I made that statement. I was paraphrasing what scientists (creationists and evolutionists alike) have concluded in the years of their studies, and especially since the finding and researching of the DNA cell. We all paraphrase at one time or another, or am I not entitled to paraphrase?

There's no problem with paraphrasing other people's assertions. But when you assert that their assertions are true, you are making the same assertion.

Your statement that "scientists (creationists and evolutionists alike) have concluded" that abiogensis is impossible is not fully accurate. The truth is that your position is a minority opinion. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but you cannot assert that it is an established scientific fact. That's simply not true, and you know it.

I gave you reputable literature (two sites) and quotes by both creationist and evolution scientists, its not my problem if you reject it all, I kept my end.
“You say I didn't recognize this at first because I didn't comment on it.” The whole point of giving that post was in answer to your question and that's the very reason I highlighted it in red, so that you could see the answer to your question. Not because “in effect I am making those assertions myself.”

You buried it in a blizzard of other opinions. That's not how we should conduct serious discourse. You should find one or two of the best quotes that support your position and then we can discuss them to see if they hold up. It's your "shotgun" approach that creates confusion.

I'm very reasonable about these things. I readily admit truth when it can be demonstrated. We could have a great conversation if we just relax a little and deal with things one point at a time.

When you read any article on the Bible, science etc., do you always agree with the author 100%? I doubt that very much. You take what you believe to be true of what the author is saying, and disagree with the rest. That is you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater do you? Of course not.

It is rare that I agree 100% with opinions about the Bible because those opinions are usually based on all sorts of misunderstandings and the whole topic is largely based on unsupported opinions and interpretations that cannot be confirmed. Science is not like that. I almost always find perfect agreement with anything I read in the hard sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Except, of course, when reading speculations about aspects that have not yet been settled by experiment.

But in this case, the opinions of your star witness are crucial for the general discussion since he rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design and fully accepts "Darwinian evolution as one of the best supported theories in science."

Wiki can explain it much better than I can http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...liK_RXZzOXMATg (click "information" in article).

As for why it could not evolve, this site http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html gives detailed scientific reasons point by point as to why it could not have evolved. But you reject that evidence because it comes from a creationist site. In any case I answered your request.

God bless---Twospirits

But do you understand what those articles are saying? Anyone can merely paste a link.

I already understand the wiki article on DNA. I wanted to know if you do.

Here's the problem. From everything you have written, I have no reason to think you personally have any understanding about why evolution could or could not occur. It appears that you are completely ignorant of the actual science of evolution and the evidence that supports it, and that you disbelieve it only because it contradicts your interpretation of the Bible which you take as absolute truth.

Let me explain why your method of argument will never work. You cannot convince anyone of anything without giving them an understanding of why they are wrong. Quoting a blizzard of out of context quotes only proves that some other people agree with you. It doesn't really help anyone know who is right or wrong. So here's how it works: You make an assertion, and I either agree or diagree. If I agree, we have a foundation of agreement upon which to stand and so can move to the next point. If not, then we need to find out why we don't agree about the assertion. Case in point: You assert that matter cannot create information. I do not hold that presupposition. Now I know that what we call "information" is not "material" since it has no weight (e.g. an empty computer disc weighs the same as one with a gigabyte of data on it). But the fact that information is not itself physical does not mean that it cannot be formed by physical mechanisms. This is not a trivial question that can be answered with sound bytes. It must be answered with UNDERSTANDING.

I would LOVE to have a rational discussion with you about this question. I would absolutely love to walk through the argument to see if it stands.

All the best Henry,

Richard

[luke1978]

Hey there Luke,

I would like to know what alternative scenario you think is more likely than evolution. Do you think it is something like this?

"About 3.8 billion years ago, God directly acted on matter to construct the first prokaryote cell. Then he sat back and let the cells multiply for about a billion years. Then he tinkered with them so they could photosynthesize and sat back for another billion years. Then he directly acted on matter again to create the first eukaryote cell and sat back for yet about half a billion years. Then he got a rush of creativity and made the first multi-cellular organisms and after about half a billion years he finally perfected the Hox Genes Toolkit that is needed for all the bilateral body plans. This is when he really went nuts exploring every weird body plan you could imagine (Cambrian explosion). He let most of them go extinct for his own mysterious reasons. (Probably to confound atheists into thinking there is evidence for evolution.) And then he ..."

It would really help if you could explain the scenario that you really believe most accurately represents the history of life on this planet, and which takes into account the full sum of our current knowledge.



PS: I got the evolutionary timeline here.

I don't believe in evolution. Man probably ate the dinosaurs for food just like the Japanese whalers do at the moment with whales.

Check out this timeline:

http://www.worldbydesign.org/researc...dinosaurs.html

Extract:

DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONE FRAGMENTS:
The dating of dinosaur fossils is not as simple a matter as the media and mainstream science would like us to believe. There are no magical dating machines generate a report which reads 70 million year old; rather most dating of fossils is done by dating nearby lava flows or other igneous or metamorphic rock assumed to have lost all daughter products and been "set" at the time of the dinosaur or other fossil formation. Then stratagraphic correlation is used to reconstruct the sequence and time. The only method that dates the fossils themselves is carbon dating but evolutionists believe that dinosaurs are too old for carbon dating. This begs the question, are they really that old? In 1970, Professor Robert Whitelaw of Virginia Polytechnic Institute examined the radiocarbon data reported in the journal, Radiocarbon. He was surprised to find that several of these came from specimens which would be considered several million years old by evolutionary dating. Examples are:

Sabre-toothed tiger:
28,000 years (evolution: a few million)

Petrified wood:
10,000 years (evolution: several million)

Carboniferous coal:
1,680 years (evolution: above 300 million)

End Extract:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I don't believe in evolution. Man probably ate the dinosaurs for food just like the Japanese whalers do at the moment with whales.

Check out this timeline:

http://www.worldbydesign.org/researc...dinosaurs.html

Extract:

DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONE FRAGMENTS:
The dating of dinosaur fossils is not as simple a matter as the media and mainstream science would like us to believe. There are no magical dating machines generate a report which reads 70 million year old; rather most dating of fossils is done by dating nearby lava flows or other igneous or metamorphic rock assumed to have lost all daughter products and been "set" at the time of the dinosaur or other fossil formation. Then stratagraphic correlation is used to reconstruct the sequence and time. The only method that dates the fossils themselves is carbon dating but evolutionists believe that dinosaurs are too old for carbon dating. This begs the question, are they really that old? In 1970, Professor Robert Whitelaw of Virginia Polytechnic Institute examined the radiocarbon data reported in the journal, Radiocarbon. He was surprised to find that several of these came from specimens which would be considered several million years old by evolutionary dating. Examples are:

Sabre-toothed tiger:
28,000 years (evolution: a few million)

Petrified wood:
10,000 years (evolution: several million)

Carboniferous coal:
1,680 years (evolution: above 300 million)

End Extract:

So you accept this one man's testimony - who just happens to be a young earth creationist - about a 42 year old experiment that was never repeated and has long been debunked, over the united testimony of the entire scientific community supported by millions of scientific experiments?

Could you explain what could possible justify taking such a fringe position?

If his conclusions were true, they would be accepted by the scientific community. But the sad fact is that his results have been debunked for years, yet creationists just ignore the truth and continue to repeat the lies.

The creationist claims are totally fallacious and have been completely debunked. You can read all about it in this collection of articles (3.2 MB PDF) from the National Center for Science Education. Here's a snippet that shows you what real scientists think of the creationist "science." The linked articles contains full scientific refutations if you are really interested in real science:

A tactic of creationists is to use apparently scientific methods and
equipment to collect data supporting their theories. An outstanding
example is using radiocarbon dating to show that humans and
dinosaurs coexisted. Radiocarbon dating is a well established and
accepted technique for measuring recent geologic ages. By 14C dating
dinosaur bones and obtaining apparent ages of less than 40,000 years,
creationists believe they have used accepted scientific techniques and
methods to prove that dinosaurs are thousands, not millions, of years old.
These "experiments" are also used to "prove" that the Earth is a few
thousand, not billions, of years old, and that all life was created at once and
without the assistance of evolution. For some, incontrovertible proof of
human and dinosaur coexistencelies in newspaper comic strips or by watching
a Godzilla movie on late-night TV. For others, additional proof is
provided by scientific experiments that outwardly appear to be logical.
Creationists twist reality when they use radiocarbon dating to prove that
dinosaurs and humans lived contemporaneously. After radiocarbon dating
dinosaur bones and obtaining ages of less than 40,000 years, creationists use
these data as evidence that the Mesozoic Era (Age of Reptiles) is (<40,000
years old, not 65 to 248 million years old, and that humans and dinosaurs
lived together a few thousand years ago, thus negating evolution. Such
crcationism "science" may be theater of the absurd, but these one act
travesties are reported without criticism in newspapers, and thereby gain a
semblance of credibility. Like all rumors, they obtain a life of their own and
become urban mythology. Combined with sufficient scientific jargon, the
creationist "experiments" seem logical to an unsuspecting audience. The evil
is that creationist dogma is being taken seriously enough by a scientifically
illiterate populace that evolution is diluted or even omitted from biology
textbooks. The result is that our education system is being made a travesty.
While European and Asian nations accelerate past us intellectually,
Americans are sliding back into the Stone Age.

In conclusion, the errors in creationist arguments are due to their total
ignorance of chemistry and the principles of physics, the misapplication of
these fields, and the use of purported scientific techniques to prove their
dogmas. There are well known and valid ways to analyze for proteins and
these techniques are ignored. The technique of radiocarbon dating is indeed
well establ ished and valid. However, C dating is no more able to distinguish
between 100,000 yr and 100,000,000 yr old samples than is a truck weighing
scale capable of detecting an extra speck of dust in a 10,000 pound cargo. It
is a travesty of physics to apply 14C dating to samples millions of years old.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiomet...ml#reliability

The evidence is conclusive. The creationist arguments are false and contrary to all science.

[luke1978]

So you accept this one man's testimony - who just happens to be a young earth creationist - about a 42 year old experiment that was never repeated and has long been debunked, over the united testimony of the entire scientific community supported by millions of scientific experiments?

Could you explain what could possible justify taking such a fringe position?

If his conclusions were true, they would be accepted by the scientific community. But the sad fact is that his results have been debunked for years, yet creationists just ignore the truth and continue to repeat the lies.

The creationist claims are totally fallacious and have been completely debunked. You can read all about it in this collection of articles (3.2 MB PDF) from the National Center for Science Education. Here's a snippet that shows you what real scientists think of the creationist "science." The linked articles contains full scientific refutations if you are really interested in real science:

A tactic of creationists is to use apparently scientific methods and
equipment to collect data supporting their theories. An outstanding
example is using radiocarbon dating to show that humans and
dinosaurs coexisted. Radiocarbon dating is a well established and
accepted technique for measuring recent geologic ages. By 14C dating
dinosaur bones and obtaining apparent ages of less than 40,000 years,
creationists believe they have used accepted scientific techniques and
methods to prove that dinosaurs are thousands, not millions, of years old.
These "experiments" are also used to "prove" that the Earth is a few
thousand, not billions, of years old, and that all life was created at once and
without the assistance of evolution. For some, incontrovertible proof of
human and dinosaur coexistencelies in newspaper comic strips or by watching
a Godzilla movie on late-night TV. For others, additional proof is
provided by scientific experiments that outwardly appear to be logical.
Creationists twist reality when they use radiocarbon dating to prove that
dinosaurs and humans lived contemporaneously. After radiocarbon dating
dinosaur bones and obtaining ages of less than 40,000 years, creationists use
these data as evidence that the Mesozoic Era (Age of Reptiles) is (<40,000
years old, not 65 to 248 million years old, and that humans and dinosaurs
lived together a few thousand years ago, thus negating evolution. Such
crcationism "science" may be theater of the absurd, but these one act
travesties are reported without criticism in newspapers, and thereby gain a
semblance of credibility. Like all rumors, they obtain a life of their own and
become urban mythology. Combined with sufficient scientific jargon, the
creationist "experiments" seem logical to an unsuspecting audience. The evil
is that creationist dogma is being taken seriously enough by a scientifically
illiterate populace that evolution is diluted or even omitted from biology
textbooks. The result is that our education system is being made a travesty.
While European and Asian nations accelerate past us intellectually,
Americans are sliding back into the Stone Age.

In conclusion, the errors in creationist arguments are due to their total
ignorance of chemistry and the principles of physics, the misapplication of
these fields, and the use of purported scientific techniques to prove their
dogmas. There are well known and valid ways to analyze for proteins and
these techniques are ignored. The technique of radiocarbon dating is indeed
well establ ished and valid. However, C dating is no more able to distinguish
between 100,000 yr and 100,000,000 yr old samples than is a truck weighing
scale capable of detecting an extra speck of dust in a 10,000 pound cargo. It
is a travesty of physics to apply 14C dating to samples millions of years old.

Evolution cannot be proved and neither can the age of the dinosaurs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UISt...eature=related

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm0o5cBWGRE

and last of all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F05Cn...feature=fvwrel

They are nothing more then big crocodiles :-)