Answering Questions on Creation and Creationism

[Naraoia]

Please preview your messages and check that the quotes appear as quotes

1. I do not feel deceived.

And I asked why did you decide that the other side is deception. You said something like you've been "out of the deception" for long, and to me that seemed to imply that you didn't start out on the side you are on now, but I may have misunderstood you.

I see the consistency in the mechanisms
that I know are cursed and I know many of them are dormant or
have no use,

This just doesn't make sense. The words are English but the meaning doesn't come through.

but I do not assume that at one time there was not
a purpose for them.

Well, in the case of pseudogenes, no one does. And in a sense ERVs used to have a "purpose" too, only that purpose wasn't to serve the good of the host

Once again, "curse" is the answer to what is petitio principii here.

How is "curse" an answer and where was the petitio principii?

2. We can't test mutations we don't observe taking place around
us. IOW, mutations that we actually know DO take place.

I think you've just said that mutations that we don't observe = mutations we know take place?

What did you want to say again?

3. I know everyone is hungry to debate a creationist who will
actually start laying out some evidence and supporting it, but
even if I start to go that route I'm not sure there is going to
be a change here.

And doesn't that... maybe... make you suspicious about that alleged evidence? Perhaps even about your position?

4. I would love to stay and actually start debating. It used
to be favorite past time to engage point for point. But I do
not feel "called" (if you can understand that from a religious
point of view) to do this right now, and I am not being as
fruitful in other areas of ministry right now.

I understand. Everyone feels lazy from time to time

5. After reading up on reverse transcription I was wrong
about tRNA, I believe, but I am so used to finding out I was
right about something that an evolutionist told me I was
wrong on, so perhaps that biased me.

I do wonder what those "somethings" were, and where you found out you were right. It's just that I don't recall many cases when a creationist and an evolutionist disagreed on science and the creationist was right, but of course that may just be my limited experience with the creationist standards on this forum...

it is obvious that I need to break out some old texts, or
look stuff up online, but I just don't have time to study these
different viruses and retroviruses right now.
~Michael

No problem. I know the "no time" feeling only too well.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes, on this point I am guilty. This is a little too strong, if taken personally, and I was venting frustration perhaps about losing some posts, etc. and I DO apologize.

Accepted.

Let me rephrase it. Because I believe that science teaches that there
is a God, (various arguments one of them being Information needs a
Source, mRNA a message or code that needs a Writer or an Author)
I believe that you bring this "theology" to science as an assumption.

Have you watched cdk007's genetic code video? (I posted it, I think, in my last post yesterday). Take a few minutes to think about the idea and tell me why it would need any kind of an author other than chemistry. (Or, if you have no time, please drop this point. Just you asserting it with conviction won't make me accept it.)

Likewise I am frustrated when groups of people follow things that do
not make sense to me. One that I noted was the polygraph. There
are others, as I am sure there are for you as well.

Creationism for one thing

If a doctor uses scientific observation and finds cancer in a patient
and with repeated lab tests over and over verifies this scientifically
and then a group of people come and pray over that individual and
that individual has had no Chemo therapy or any treatment and
afterwards, scientific observation demonstrates that the cancer
is completely gone, I believe it is logical to conclude the supernatural.

Except (1) cancer tests are not infallible, (2) cancer is normally kept in check by the immune system. That is, most cancers are killed off by immune cells before they could be noticed. The immune system may be able to fight already large cancers if something triggers it against them. Spontaneous remission is rare and still something of a mystery, but that doesn't mean it's miraculous. (And prayer, to my knowledge, doesn't make it more likely) Here is an article about cases, possible explanations and unanswered questions.

This is primarily of course, because I know there is a God, and because, yes, the supernatural has happened with me personally once 22 years ago.

Would you mind telling us about it? As a trainee scientist I'm rather interested.

Likewise, all scientific data points to supernatural necessity for a
living cell or for information in RNA and DNA,

WHICH scientific data (details please)? I've spent much of the past year learning more about precisely that kind of data, and never seen the smell of the supernatural.

Oh, and before I forget: I'm still waiting for your definition of (quantifiable!) information.

I believe it is wrong for science to remain silent on the need for special creation.

It's not silent. It says "no need".

So let me rephrase and say that "everyone followed along with
a materialistic and naturalistic philosophy

It's a materialistic and naturalistic methodology. There's a difference. A naturalistic philosophy asserts that there is nothing but nature. A naturalistic methodology cannot make claims either way, other than nature can be explained with nature.

and ignored the evidence that demonstrated special creation.
If you say there is no evidence. petitio principii "What about all of the "alleged" evidence for special creation, starting with Information needs an Informant.

Still waiting for a useful definition of information.

 

[Naraoia]

God is not a man that He would need to perform "magic." Since we
are in the Christian forums I will tell you freely that God is FACTUAL.

You can tell us all you like, that doesn't make it true.

See, I can tell you that mathematical objects are Platonic ideals*. And that's a fact. Do you believe me? Why or why not?




*In case you are interested, I actually believe something like that, but I'd never try to sell it as fact.

 

[Breckmin]

I claim that the FSM is an Infinite Personal Existence beyond the dimensions of time and space, capable of such creation. We all know the FSM is just as "ridiculous" as is your God.

Because I believe you are a smart person, I really believe you are smart
enough if you spent time philosophically looking at this to see the holes.

You can start with the difference between something "finite" which is
made up of matter, and the need for Someone who is not made up of
matter to actually create matter.

I am not going to entertain an argumentum ad absurdum that has
already been demonstrated to be incongruous.

I believe you can find the several holes (I would point to) yourself.
~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

Because I believe you are a smart person, I really believe you are smart enough if you spent time philosophically looking at this to see the holes.

You can start with the difference between something "finite" which is
made up of matter, and the need for Someone who is not made up of
matter to actually create matter.

Looking at this philosphically, I have to call this nonsense. I have no other word for it.

I am not going to entertain an argumentum ad absurdum that has
already been demonstrated to be incongruous.

You have yet to demonstrate anything. So far, all you've managed is to restate your assertions. When are you going to back them up. I'm sorry that I have to be so harsh here, but do you really think you have made anything resembling an argument anywhere in this thread?

I believe you can find the several holes (I would point to) yourself.
~Michael

Nope. Sorry.

 

[Breckmin]

Still waiting for a useful definition of information.

I'll bet you if you looked it up in a modern dictionary, it would even
give a reference to DNA.

Not going to argue here right now. Maybe I will come back in a few
months and actually debate, but based on what I am seeing here, I
don't think it will matter what argument I put up, a living cell and our
inability to even reassemble it is than enough proof for me.

~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

I'll bet you if you looked it up in a modern dictionary, it would even give a reference to DNA.

You're not very lucky in your bets, are you? I can find a number of definitions of information in the dictionary, but none that are quantifiable, or even applicable to biology. So try again.

Not going to argue here right now. Maybe I will come back in a few
months and actually debate, but based on what I am seeing here, I
don't think it will matter what argument I put up, a living cell and our
inability to even reassemble it is than enough proof for me.

~Michael

You haven't put up an argument yet. You keep avoiding even the most basic of questions, "what is your definition of information". How can you say that it won't matter what argument you put up, when you haven't put up an argument here in any way?

 

[Skaloop]

I am not going to entertain an argumentum ad absurdum that has already been demonstrated to be incongruous.

And yet an argumentum ad absurdum is exactly what you are clinging to.

 

[agentorange20]

You can start with the difference between something "finite" which is made up of matter, and the need for Someone who is not made up of matter to actually create matter.

Why must it be a personal being to create the object of matter/energy, any logical reasoning will suffice.

You're proposing that matter/energy require a causation, or creative agent to form them, but from every scientific test done with regarding energy/matter and how they relate to the First Law of Thermodynamics neither can be created nor destroyed, they are -eternal.

Their very nature defies the notion of requiring creation as they can't not exist, thus they don't require a causation in the first place. Therefore to ask what/who caused that which doesn't require causation (like how Theists assert about the nature of God in general) then this would be a logically wrong.

If you're going to keep creeping back on here, at least have the nerve to reply to my questions on GULO, ERV's and human chormosome 2 evidence. All we've heard from you is that according to creation(ism) 'they are expected to be this way', but you've not explained based on evidence and in details why this should be.

 

[Breckmin]

7. Proverb 16:25

[/b]

què?

I punched the wrong number while typing the the dark. The 4 should have been a 5.

Sorry I didn't read it earlier.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Re: Inserting at random

BTW, from the creationist perspective human kind does have will volition and people do
make choices based on circumstances, but things that appear "random" to us are not
necessarily random to the Infinite Creator.
Therefore we often only look at random when it is wrongfully "claimed" by those who
reject God. We do not believe that processes are necessarily random or have to be
random just because they appear that way to finite man.

Somethings appear random because of our lack of knowledge and ability to see
pattern and order, but this does not necessarily make it so.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

And I asked why did you decide that the other side is deception. You said something like you've been "out of the deception" for long, and to me that seemed to imply that you didn't start out on the side you are on now, but I may have misunderstood you.

But the point is that "God did not deceive me." I was deceived because I
was fed universal common ancestry by others who believed and were
teaching it.

Scientists keep making the pseudo claim that the creation is deceptive.
Bologna. If they would start from foundational assumptions then they
would know the need for divine revelation to interpret evidence.

There are plenty of people studying science who are NOT deceived, and
they are constantly mocked and ridiculed by those who claim that "if
what they believe isn't true then the creation is deceptive."

They are in for a very "eye opening" experience on judgement day.
And Romans 1:20 will be more than clear! (as it is to those who know
that God is factual now)
~Michael

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists keep making the pseudo claim that the creation is deceptive.

God has heard it all before.

Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Breckmin]

Why must it be a personal being to create the object of matter/energy, any logical reasoning will suffice.

It is not a "matter" of what "must be" but it is a matter of what IS?

You are spending so much time trying to find reasons why there "is"
no God, that you have really not looked around the world and opened
your eyes up to the billions of people who are living much differently
than animals, and they are being "tested" right now.

The reason God is a Personal Being is theological. God became a Man
in the person and work of Jesus Christ and died on a Cross for our
sins because He Loves Us. John 3:16.

Now I could go all through history citing Philo and other sources
as to how we know the God of the Bible IS that incredible Personal
Being, but "what would it profit you?" Would it really change your
mind without Love from Your Heavenly Father that you desire??

The fact is "matter" and "energy" are NO accident. Neither are you.
You and everyone that posts in these forums is being tested right
now in your short lives. You have a "choice." That "choice" is
"what are you going to do about Jesus."

No "matter" where you go in life....there is a "choice" that is set
before you. The claim is that God became a Man and died in your
place.. and now you have to make a decision. "What are you
going to do about Jesus?" Because "ultimately" you are either
FOR or against God, if He became a Man, and He says this in
the scriptures, so "once again."

There is really only one question that "matters" in life. That
question is: (and I hope you never forget this) "What are you
going to do about Jesus?"

You asked why it has to be a Personal Being. My answer is
the "baby's answer" (and I DO pride myself on being a little
baby in God's eyes) "Because God is Love." He has revealed
this to us when we become as babes.

Why is He a Personal Being?

Because God is a Loving God and He desires to save us.
"What are we going to "choose" regarding Jesus?"

Now, yes, I could go through all kinds of philosophical debates
here and talk about "the requirement of an Intelligent Existence to
create matter and energy," but that will just lead to more arguing
and more futile debate. The only real question in life is "why are
we here" and "how are we being tested?" And the question that
will always be with all of us, no matter where we go in the world
is THIS!

"What I am going to do about Jesus?"

"What are YOU going to do about Jesus?" This is a Christian
Forum, and God desires you to know the Truth about Him in
Your Heart. Will you pray and ask Him to show you? Will you
pray to your Heavenly Father and ask Him to protect you from
anything that isn't true?

There IS a Heavenly Father Who loves you, and many of you
are "missing" Him.

In His Love and Great Things He Could Do in Your Life,
Michael Breck

 

[Tomk80]

Re: Inserting at random

BTW, from the creationist perspective human kind does have will volition and people do
make choices based on circumstances, but things that appear "random" to us are not
necessarily random to the Infinite Creator.
Therefore we often only look at random when it is wrongfully "claimed" by those who
reject God. We do not believe that processes are necessarily random or have to be
random just because they appear that way to finite man.

Somethings appear random because of our lack of knowledge and ability to see
pattern and order, but this does not necessarily make it so.

~Michael

Cute, but really not relevant, because from the perpective of a theistic evolutionist this could just as well be the same.

Point is that when people talk about random, it is always in context. A mutation is random with respect to the environment the organism lives in. It could be entirely deterministic, meaning that if we knew the exact mechanisms behind it's occurring we could determine exactly which base pair would mutate and when and where it would do this. This would still make them random with respect to the survivability of the organism.

Therefore, a position that a number of theistic evolutionists hold, namely that of guided evolution where the entire course of history is guided by God is still a possibility with the theory of evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

But the point is that "God did not deceive me." I was deceived because I was fed universal common ancestry by others who believed and were teaching it.

But the thing we are asking is why you think the other side is deception. Again you haven't answered the question.

Scientists keep making the pseudo claim that the creation is deceptive. Bologna. If they would start from foundational assumptions then they would know the need for divine revelation to interpret evidence.

I have yet to see any scientist make the claim that the creation is deceptive. Care to back that one up?

There are plenty of people studying science who are NOT deceived, and they are constantly mocked and ridiculed by those who claim that "if what they believe isn't true then the creation is deceptive."

Because they don't take into account all the facts. They pick and choose. That is what opens them up to ridicule.

They are in for a very "eye opening" experience on judgement day.
And Romans 1:20 will be more than clear! (as it is to those who know
that God is factual now)
~Michael

Oh please.

 

[Tomk80]

It is not a "matter" of what "must be" but it is a matter of what IS?

You made the claim that it "must be". You state there is a need for a creator, not us.

You are spending so much time trying to find reasons why there "is" no God, that you have really not looked around the world and opened
your eyes up to the billions of people who are living much differently
than animals, and they are being "tested" right now.

Sorry, but no. I never spend time finding reasons why there is no God. I spend time researching the reasons why others say there is one. That those reasons fail basic tests of logic and evidence is not my fault.

snip preaching that doesn't answer the question

Now, yes,

I could go through all kinds of philosophical debates here and talk about "the requirement of an Intelligent Existence to create matter and energy," but that will just lead to more arguing and more futile debate. The only real question in life is "why are we here" and "how are we being tested?" And the question that will always be with all of us, no matter where we go in the world is THIS!

More avoidance of the argument.

snip more preaching

You made a claim. You made the claim that that claim can be backed up by logic and reasoning. We're asking you to back up that claim, not to avoid it and preach to us. You are in the "creation and evolution" part of christianforums, which is a part of the physical and life sciences forum. It is a forum especially for the discussion of scientific topics, backed up by scientific reasoning. If I want to hear preaching, I'll go to a different forum here.

 

[agentorange20]

Re: Inserting at random BTW, from the creationist perspective human kind does have will volition and people do make choices based on circumstances,

(Palms face) Breckmin, the VIRUS inserts itself in a random manner this part was already fairly well understood before we began defining many of their insertion locations, that is it doesn't have any preferred area of insertion within the range of genome itself.

The range for those formentioned was any site between a range of 50,000,000 to 500,000,000 per ERV. Now, what are the odds for one particular ERV to be shared amonst 2 different species? Not very good, but if we consider common ancestry and evolution as a means it would explain such odds. Now, what are the odds of 7 identical ERV's all in the same genomic locations all with relatively 98% identical sequence (small point mutations have occured)? Absurdly small.....unless one consideres common ancestry.

but things that appear "random" to us are not necessarily random to the Infinite Creator.

Quantum Mechanics is another process which is at the minute level quite random.

Therefore we often only look at random when it is wrongfully "claimed" by those who reject God.

Inversely, the random death of a 3 year old we are told as God's will or his plan by some of those whom accept God. Horrid logic. Still, many of those who accept evolutionary science and understand ERV's are, get this, believers!

If you don't say it's (ERV insertion) random then you're implying it's designed, and if its designed and yet you hold this position of 'no common ancestry' well that would be you accepting a deceptive God who like the bible thumpers of prior would alledge God just put those fossils in the ground.

If it's all not random, then whence comes the notion of 'Free Will'? If it's all designed, all pre-planed and pre-ordained, then the idea of having free will at all is out the window as it would be more apt to desribe life as a series of already pre-recored events that we are just living out, like the Trumen Show.

We do not believe that processes are necessarily random or have to be random just because they appear that way to finite man.

Appealing to ignorance. It seems you never come to explaining the details on why the evidence is wrong, you just prefer to sit in your tower and make decries that 'common ancestry aint true' and so on. Show it's not true, via evidence. Can you do me the respect of explaing those hominid fossils I listed like 3 pages ago?

Somethings appear random because of our lack of knowledge and ability to see pattern and order, but this does not necessarily make it so.

Take a deck of 52 cards, shuffle them a few times and deal out the cards one by one and make note of recording each one of their sequential order. Now, repeat the process and see how many times it takes to repeat the very first sequential order in full. This dealing of cards is such a randomized pattern, there is no predictability (at least not to the card to card order) of the sequnetial order of all 52 cards.

 

[agentorange20]

I was deceived because I was fed universal common ancestry by others who believed and were teaching it.

Quit the charades, we're not talking universal common ancestry here, we're talking about common ancestry between the extant apes and modern humans via evidence like ERV's.

Scientists keep making the pseudo claim that the creation is deceptive.

Deceptive in what way? Deceptive in how no gods are needed to explain the orbits of planets and celestial objects, but instead an entirely natural force and process - Gravity?

If they would start from foundational assumptions then they would know the need for divine revelation to interpret evidence.

There you go with your a priori assumptions again. Why should we assume anything is divine?

They are in for a very "eye opening" experience on judgement day.

Ohhhhh,oooooo, lay on the fear mongering why don't ya, after all with little to no evidence to back your claims, or this one, why should anyone take you seriously?

(as it is to those who know that God is factual now)

You do understand there is a philosophical difference between knowing and believing, right? You don't know, you assume and only on mere belief. Anyone, theist or atheist who says they know with regards to such a huge existential question doesn't understand the differences in meaning of words and are wrong, lying, or fooling themselves.

 

[agentorange20]

It is not a "matter" of what "must be" but it is a matter of what IS?

IS here is contingent on evidence, the IS in regards to ERV's is that they demonstrate our shared ancestry, that's what Is is.

You are spending so much time trying to find reasons why there "is" no God,

Na, I look at the concept of God just as most rational people do with respect to anything supernatural, I am highly skeptical. Also, I reject the notion as in principle all the religions are equally dismayed on which God is the only one. Christians don't outright reject the God of Allah, but they dismiss him for the very same reason that I dismiss them both, for they lack compelling evidence. Your religion is merely a reflection of the consequence of where and when you were born, had you been born in Classic Greece you'd be swearing up and down that Appolo and only grecco Gods are the only true ones.

that you have really not looked around the world and opened your eyes up to the billions of people who are living much differently than animals, and they are being "tested" right now.

And conveniently billions of them don't all agree on which God(s) are the correct one to worship. Fancy that! Gee, which should I agree with when they, through out all time, could never agree on a single one? Sounds more like a manifestation of humanity and the typical anthropocentric view of the world of brutes who refered to magic.

That "choice" is "what are you going to do about Jesus."

Nothing, just like what are you going to do about Allah, Zeus, Thor, Baal, etc. etc. I take that your repetition on this question shows how little you have in terms of persuasion. Once you see that I reject your god for the very similar reasons that you reject all others, then you'll see my point of view. Get it?

Now, yes, I could go through all kinds of philosophical debates here and talk about "the requirement of an Intelligent Existence to create matter and energy," but that will just lead to more arguing and more futile debate.

We'd love to hear you try, but you don't seem to be a details and science type, you've still yet to address in details such genetic evidence. GULO, HC2, ERV's, give it a go already, show via evidence why they don't demonstrate our shared ancestry.

Besides, it's scientifically demonstrated (as I mentioned earlier) that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, ergo their existence is in defiance of the notion of requiring causation in the first place, just like how theists propose god to be as being eternal.

Your proposition of insertion of an agent is nonsense and not logical, they don't require causation in the first place. So to ask who created that which requires no creative force would be like asking "what sound does a one handed clap make?"