Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Physical & Life Sciences > Creation & Evolution
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Unread 10th October 2003, 05:47 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 153,979
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
Someone asked about "forcing" chemicals:

I am talking about the gathering of specific chemicals and putting them together in one place and subjecting them to various forms of energy etc. This is how you make plastic for example. Forcing is done by intelligent beings (humans) so it is often not a fair demonstration of a supposed natural condition.
__________________

__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #192  
Unread 10th October 2003, 06:09 PM
ThePhoenix's Avatar
Senior Veteran

Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 12th August 2003
Posts: 4,705
Blessings: 179,797
Reps: 907 (power: 0)
ThePhoenix is just really niceThePhoenix is just really niceThePhoenix is just really niceThePhoenix is just really niceThePhoenix is just really niceThePhoenix is just really niceThePhoenix is just really niceThePhoenix is just really nice
Originally Posted by RFHendrix
Someone asked about "forcing" chemicals:

I am talking about the gathering of specific chemicals and putting them together in one place and subjecting them to various forms of energy etc. This is how you make plastic for example. Forcing is done by intelligent beings (humans) so it is often not a fair demonstration of a supposed natural condition.
Now "forcing" is an illegitimate way of making organic chemicals, because it doesn't happen in nature? Evidence is that it took about 1.5 billion years. I think that's long enough to create conditions similar to the ones scientists used somewhere. It's a fair demonstration if you can show that it's possible that conditions like that could have existed during the earth's formation. After all if the chance of such an occurance happening somewhere on the earth's 10^15th square meters each year was a miniscule .00001% the chances of it occuring in 1 billion years would be indistinguishable from 100%. It's interesting how you talk about probability from a Young Earth perspective. It's almost like you completely ignore the fact that the theory states that the 6000 year estimate is off by 6 orders of magnitude. What is impossible in a thousand years, or unlikely in a million, is nearly certain in a billion.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #193  
Unread 10th October 2003, 06:25 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 153,979
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
Yeah I know, given enough time all things are possible. Or so says he who cannot answer the questions. Time solves all the problems. How convenient.
__________________

__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Unread 10th October 2003, 06:28 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 153,979
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
Come to think of it I think that time must have asembled all the chemicals together to make that old rusty truck I pass each day on the way to work. I'm sure there was no forcing involved. In other words; atheism is based on absurdity.
__________________

__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Unread 10th October 2003, 06:40 PM
Provoking Thought

49 Gender: Male Faith: Christian Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 11th September 2003
Location: Waukegan, IL
Posts: 1,206
Blessings: 97,916
Reps: 167 (power: 0)
Vxer1000 has a spectacular aura aboutVxer1000 has a spectacular aura about
Originally Posted by Jet Black
care to answer any of my questions then? I assume you have a degree in molecular biology, right?
My friend has a PhD in organic chemistry and works for Abbott Labrotories. He thinks evolution(evolution from a simple organism to human life) is an absurd joke. I am not nearly educated enough in this field to present a decent arguement, but I do believe God created us and agree with my friend concerning evolution. I don't believe someone has to have a PhD in any field to realize one simple fact: Just as lawyers argue a point whether ethical or not to win a case I believe(I may be wrong) many scientists with atheistic beliefs dig so deep into science and their "theories" that they many times discount the facts of previously established truths. Then everyone else has to stand in awe of their discoveries because they get lost in a sea of supposedly proven theories trying to argue(I really don't see the point of trying to look to the universe to find that I came from an ape or amobe. Do you think you came from a monkey? Maybe you did. I know I didn't). I follow science that has an already established, proven, and repeatable track record that falls in line with probability such as simple physics(it go boom), chemistry, mechanical engineering, and the such. I once considered getting into this "theory of the universe" science and believe it to not be worth my time. I have my faith in God, don't need the accolades of men, and am content with knowing the simple things in life that affect us all.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #196  
Unread 10th October 2003, 08:21 PM
Frumious Bandersnatch's Avatar
Contributor

68 Gender: Male Faith: Unitarian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 4th March 2003
Posts: 6,426
Blessings: 134,791
My Mood Amused
Reps: 19,508,763,071,063,104 (power: 19,508,763,071,081)
Frumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond repute
Frumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond repute
My friend has a PhD in organic chemistry and works for Abbott Labrotories. He thinks evolution(evolution from a simple organism to human life) is an absurd joke.
You have a friend with a Ph.D. who thinks evolution is a joke. I have met 6 Nobel prize winners in science and several members of The National Academy of Sciences and countless other scientists who disagree with him. Four of the Nobel Laureates I have met were among 72 Nobel Laureates who signed the Friend of the Court brief supporting the teaching of evolution in Edwards versus Aguillard
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwa...d/amicus1.html
If you want to keep trying to argue this by authority you will lose badly. Ask your friend to come here. Maybe some of your friend's misconceptions couild be corrected.

Do you think you came from a monkey? Maybe you did. I know I didn't


No but there is overwhelming scientific evidence that you share a common ancestor with monkeys which is a different thing.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The frumious Bandersnatch
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #197  
Unread 10th October 2003, 09:13 PM
Member

66 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th September 2003
Location: Altamont, Tennessee
Posts: 79
Blessings: 153,979
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
RFHendrix has disabled reputation
Well folks, it has been 12 days. I really do have to attend to other business so I will have to bow out of this thread. I am trying to learn the Thai language and I find I am spending my time on these types of debates while neglecting that. So I have reread much of the thread and I think that there is more agreement than I first thought and also a few unanswered questions that got lost in the thread.

1. My book is about theism and atheism with personal opinions interjected. I do not claim that it is pure science and I make that distinction in the book. Subjects such as this one cannot be explored properly anyway if we limit ourselves to the modern scientific method so I made no attempt to limit the discussion to those parameters.

2. It is my thesis that God created life however he chose, with or without the aid of natural processes that we observe today. I generally argue from the turf of materialists but I do not believe that evidence supports the idea that all that God is needed for is to somehow interject intelligence into some chemicals that formed naturally. I posit and maintain that he must have done at least that but I certainly do not believe that is all he did in relation to creation.

3. The laws of physics cannot create intelligence. Putting “natural selection” between the laws of physics and intelligence only obscures the problem but does not solve it. If mankind evolved like some assert that he did then that is evidence that there is an intelligent force in the universe. Evolution cannot be expected to arise out of thin air because of the spontaneous self assembly of chemicals and then create intelligence. That is assigning supernatural powers to a natural process and is a contradiction of terms. If we begin with the laws of physics we cannot end up with meaning to anything. Even Peter Singer calls our existence “meaningless” because he does not believe in God. But language does mean something. It is a product of intelligent thought. Information implies meaning.

4. If there is discovered to be a natural affinity of certain codons to certain amino acids that matches the existing genetic code then what has that proved? It certainly would not be evidence that disproves my thesis because that is tacitly what I am saying. I am asserting that intelligence has been interjected into the universe, especially the universe of life. God originated the language of life and assigned meaning to the chemicals symbols. There should be a correlation unless God somehow operates entirely outside of life. That is something I do not believe but to each his own.

5. Finally, I don’t know what God did or how he did anything. I am simply showing the absurdity of trying to assert that he did nothing. Atheism is based on personal belief. Join the crowd. At least most theists admit it. The book is intended to show that atheism is not the default position. I think I have proved my point. Thanks everyone for the debate. My email address is available at www.blindatheist.com (links page on the bottom) if anyone would like to correspond personally with me. I am getting ready for a trip to Thailand but I will still answer you if you are patient.
__________________

__________________
"... It is impossible that information can exist without having a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily with a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchal levels; statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes" - Werner Gitt
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Unread 10th October 2003, 10:34 PM
Frumious Bandersnatch's Avatar
Contributor

68 Gender: Male Faith: Unitarian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 4th March 2003
Posts: 6,426
Blessings: 134,791
My Mood Amused
Reps: 19,508,763,071,063,104 (power: 19,508,763,071,081)
Frumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond repute
Frumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond reputeFrumious Bandersnatch has a reputation beyond repute
Well folks, it has been 12 days. I really do have to attend to other business so I will have to bow out of this thread. I am trying to learn the Thai language and I find I am spending my time on these types of debates while neglecting that. So I have reread much of the thread and I think that there is more agreement than I first thought and also a few unanswered questions that got lost in the thread.
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] luck. I find Thai very difficult because of the five tones and the fact that I don't have a very good ear for tonal languages.

2. It is my thesis that God created life however he chose, with or without the aid of natural processes that we observe today. I generally argue from the turf of materialists but I do not believe that evidence supports the idea that all that God is needed for is to somehow interject intelligence into some chemicals that formed naturally. I posit and maintain that he must have done at least that but I certainly do not believe that is all he did in relation to creation.
This seems untestable and unfalsifiable to me but maybe others disagree.

3. The laws of physics cannot create intelligence. Putting “natural selection” between the laws of physics and intelligence only obscures the problem but does not solve it. If mankind evolved like some assert that he did then that is evidence that there is an intelligent force in the universe. Evolution cannot be expected to arise out of thin air because of the spontaneous self assembly of chemicals and then create intelligence. That is assigning supernatural powers to a natural process and is a contradiction of terms. If we begin with the laws of physics we cannot end up with meaning to anything. Even Peter Singer calls our existence “meaningless” because he does not believe in God. But language does mean something. It is a product of intelligent thought. Information implies meaning.
You have asserted this and clearly believe it but I don't think you have presented any evidence that it is true. What do you really know about the spontaneous self assembly of chemicals that proves this impossible? Your assertions do not constitute proof of your position or even evidence for it IMO.

4. If there is discovered to be a natural affinity of certain codons to certain amino acids that matches the existing genetic code then what has that proved? It certainly would not be evidence that disproves my thesis because that is tacitly what I am saying. I am asserting that intelligence has been interjected into the universe, especially the universe of life. God originated the language of life and assigned meaning to the chemicals symbols. There should be a correlation unless God somehow operates entirely outside of life. That is something I do not believe but to each his own.
I don't know if your thesis can be disproven but I don't think it can be proven either and there is a big difference.
5. Finally, I don’t know what God did or how he did anything. I am simply showing the absurdity of trying to assert that he did nothing. Atheism is based on personal belief. Join the crowd. At least most theists admit it. The book is intended to show that atheism is not the default position. I think I have proved my point.
If you don't know what he did then how can you claim to prove that he did anything? This doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks everyone for the debate. My email address is available at www.blindatheist.com (links page on the bottom) if anyone would like to correspond personally with me. I am getting ready for a trip to Thailand but I will still answer you if you are patient.
One of my favorite places. I plan to go there in December as I did last year. I went in October once and it was still a bit hot especially in central Thailand. I went once in August and will avoid doing that again if I can. Have a good trip.

The frumious Bandersnatch
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #199  
Unread 11th October 2003, 02:33 AM
notto's Avatar
Legend

45 Gender: Male Faith: UnitedChurchOfChrist Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 31st May 2002
Posts: 11,090
Blessings: 85,220
Reps: 33,621 (power: 57)
notto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to behold
notto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to beholdnotto is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by RFHendrix

1. My book is about theism and atheism with personal opinions interjected. I do not claim that it is pure science and I make that distinction in the book. Subjects such as this one cannot be explored properly anyway if we limit ourselves to the modern scientific method so I made no attempt to limit the discussion to those parameters.
'


You might want to change some of the language you use to describe your book.

"The main assertions made in the book can be either confirmed or disproved by scientific means without appeal to a supernatural source".

The assertions you have shown here, by your own admission above, are unfalsifiable, and therefore, unscientific.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #200  
Unread 11th October 2003, 02:54 AM
Jet Black's Avatar
WinAce > cdesign proponentsists

35 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: England Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 24th June 2003
Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,427
Blessings: 189,982
Reps: 16,712 (power: 46)
Jet Black is a splendid one to behold
Jet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by RFHendrix
<snip>
well the first paragraph pretty much evades everything I said.
A frame shift is not always the result of a "mistaken" mutation. They can simply be the intended manipulation of the information contained in the DNA. The same can be said for many "mutations". I can change many words into others simply by crossing out certain letters or adding one or two. The system (such as in a frog) has a great potential for variation because of the ways the information in the DNA can be manipulated (and in fact is).
this is a terrible description of a frame shift mutation. which Is why I asked to stop using the letter/word analogy. I am sure you know about how they work really so I am not going to bother describing them to you (plus you're not coming back)
We overcome new diseases all the time and we are defeated by many as well until we have time to adapt. Whole species have died out because they could not efficiently meet the challenge of a new threat. Why is the nylon eating bacteria any different? The strong survive and the weak die out.
this was not the point of the nylong bug example. the point of the nylon bug example is that completely novel, previously uncoded for enzymes can do a job, even if it isn't very efficient. I think this is the third time I have told you, and you still haven't refuted that the nylon digesting enzyme was completely novel yet.
But what does your example have to do with the evolution of meaningful language? I do not question the manipulation of existing language and the addition of new information within that framework.
perhaps you weren't following the whole example then. you see you have to look at it as a whole in the same way that you look at a painting as a whole, not just critique a brush stroke.
Your summary (above) leaves us with the same question that Fox, Kaufman et al leaves us with. Everyone simply says; "Well here is how we find the letters, and here is how we put them together, and here is how we did it in the lab so now let's just wait for a few million years and naturally a language will come forth..." Where is it? The essential question is ignored and we are in the same place as the plastic letters are in after they have been filtered naturally. We may have order or patterns but not a language.
but we do though. lets go through the whole thing, very very simply again:

the mutations we can use are all the normal mutations in DNA.

1) simple self reproducing RNA Catalyst, with additions becomes better.
2) Catalyst begins to code for more specific stretches of RNA (at this stage the RNA catalyst is becoming enzymatic), there may be several active sites on the catalyst that select for more specific regions of RNA (like a codon)
3) catalyst develops the ability to connect to amino acids and form chains, creating an additional catalyst, increasing reproduction rate.
4) simple protein becomes more and more specific in it's catalysation, eventually becoming an enzyme in it'sown right.
5) new enzyme takes over job of reproducing RNA with similar mutations (conceptually) to the RNA.
6) selection selects for the optimum number of letters in a codon, since we want the correct polypeptide chain every time. this turns out to be three.

now we have an RNA chain, that codes for proteins that facilitate it's reproduction with a basic language where amino acids are coded for by a codon base of three.

simulating this on a computer is awkward, since it would require setting up the chemistry of the entire system, unless you can think of a method of doing it with rules other than chemical ones. the chemical issues are structural ones, and the killer of a computer program would be certain stages, such as where the most basic protein catalyst is produced. this improves the reproduction rate slightly, as I said, probably really bad, but even if it helps our RNA to reproduce just once, that is once more than all the others (and this is then magnified exponentially)

anyway you aren't coming back, so I feel that this has all been a waste of time, and I suspect, perhaps rather cynically, that you just came to plug your book. If you want a provate debate about this (we can be as slow and patient as you want) then pm me.good luck with the thai anyway, I am learning German and Chinese, so I know it isn't easy.
__________________

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Return to Creation & Evolution

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:31 AM.